AMD Phenom II Review Thread [Archive]

Miss Banana

01-07-2009, 03:52 PM

NDA lifts today, the first reviews pop in.

http://www.dinoxpc.com/Tests/articoli/articolo/index.asp?id=866

Especially interesting comparisons to Phenom 1.

http://www.dinoxpc.com/Tests/articoli/articolo/processori_amd_phenom_ii_940_images/proces2.gif

Seems like scaling from 2.6Ghz to 3Ghz sometimes brings slightly more performance than the 15% you would expect.

http://www.dinoxpc.com/Tests/articoli/articolo/processori_amd_phenom_ii_940_images/proces38.jpg

With much better power consumption than Phenom 1, it's starting to make more and more sense to buy an AMD cpu again.
AMD back in the game.:clap:

Cybercat

01-07-2009, 04:30 PM

I like the line graph they used to show the percentage improvement over Phenom I, that's a cool way of showing it.

Lightman

01-07-2009, 04:34 PM

I like the line graph they used to show the percentage improvement over Phenom I, that's a cool way of showing it.

And it shows 5-15% IPC boost on everything except synthetics.

Hornet331

01-07-2009, 04:36 PM

And it shows 5-15% IPC boost on everything except synthetics.

Games just love cache. :D

Cybercat

01-07-2009, 04:42 PM

That same site also says Phenom II AM2+ is compatible with AM3, if the rough Google translation is to be believed.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dinoxpc.com%2FTests%2Farticoli% 2Farticolo%2Findex.asp%3Fid%3D866&sl=auto&tl=en&history_state0=

page 2:

Some changes have also affected the storage controller now compatible with DDR3 modules: in this case, however, we must await the arrival of the first Socket AM3 motherboards.

and on the last page with conclusions...

Moreover, anyone who wants to buy today a CPU Phenom II and in the near future to upgrade your motherboard with a Socket AM3 with support for DDR3 memory can do so without having to change the processor.

So perhaps some confirmation of what the XS AMD board has been speculated for some time on?

G0ldBr1ck

01-07-2009, 07:46 PM

For those that dont venture to far from the News section.............

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=213690

Nanometer

01-07-2009, 08:39 PM

Im glad they added the consumption of power.. and that they added intel's offerings.... what a worthless review

G0ldBr1ck

01-07-2009, 08:57 PM

Im glad they added the consumption of power.. and that they added intel's offerings.... what a worthless review

Why do you say its worthless? somebody spent there time to get info to others.

ether.real

01-07-2009, 09:05 PM

ClubOC review is up....

http://www.cluboverclocker.com/reviews/cpu/amd/PhenomII940Black/p1.asp

roofsniper

01-07-2009, 09:07 PM

yea i thought the review was nice. im really happy with the power consumption numbers. theres not a big difference from 2.8ghz to 3ghz and i hope it scales that way too when it overclocks. looks like one of these would run cooler than my 9600 is on stock. even with the large l3 and the imc its power consumption is still close to the core 2 cpus.

i have mad paint skillz.

Mr.BSEL

01-07-2009, 09:11 PM

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

onethreehill

01-07-2009, 09:11 PM

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/
http://techreport.com/articles.x/16147
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=16757
http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=667&Itemid=27
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2338338,00.asp
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/13562-hardware-canucks-benchmarkers-guide-phenom-ii.html
http://hothardware.com/Articles/Enter-The-Dragon-AMD-Phenom-II-X4-940/
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-940,2114.html
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2009/01/08/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/1
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_phenom_2_940_performance/

BrowncoatGR

01-07-2009, 10:16 PM

http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=1

OBR

01-07-2009, 10:20 PM

some web has today review of GTX 295 ... Phenom II will be tomorrow

Bobsama

01-07-2009, 10:30 PM

BulldogPO

01-07-2009, 10:50 PM

Lots of interesting reviews up allready. I want to se comparision against good old Q6600 and Q9550.

CarpeDiem

01-07-2009, 10:52 PM

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492

Epsilon84

01-07-2009, 10:54 PM

Wow. That's looking VERY good. As of right now, Phenom II could be at least a match versus Core i7. I would have preferred to see Ci7 920 numbers though--if the a940 can match or undercut the i920, they'll get a lot of sales. As of right now, the use of DDR2 and close performance in games says that an AM3 Phenom II and an AM2+ board may be a (much) better option then an i7. I guess I'll see though--Intel needs to get P55 out to compete, and hopefully memory prices will be driven down as DDR3 heats up.

You talk as if current C2Qs/S775 don't even exist... :p:

News flash, the performance levels of PII is right in line with C2Qs and the pricing reflects that. As many people will tell you, PII is more about competing against C2Q than Ci7.

Glow9

01-07-2009, 10:59 PM

Wow. That's looking VERY good. As of right now, Phenom II could be at least a match versus Core i7.]

What!? I just read 3-4 reviews and Phenom II hasn't bested any core 2 duos really so i7 even being a match..... What reviews are you reading?

savantu

01-07-2009, 11:12 PM

I7 is in a class of its own.Who want the best there is on the market, the choice is clear.

Meanwhile AMD offers a good fight in the middle of the pack , Q9400/Q9550 territory.Given Intel's price cut at the end of this month , Q9650 will take Q9550 place , while Q9550 replaces Q9450.Things will get really interesting there with Intel having the edge by a few %.

onethreehill

01-07-2009, 11:40 PM

http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1460
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/amd_phenom_ii/
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=802
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/860/1/

Zucker2k

01-07-2009, 11:45 PM

Heretic

01-07-2009, 11:59 PM

I'm actually surprised AMD is pitting PII against the low end C2D, aka Q9300/Q9400. That should tell a lot about the expected performance of these chips. It's kinda surprising how low they're clocking (stable) tho; at least that was the case with the Tech Report. I mean 3.5Ghz was max stable? :shocked: Maybe we will some some redemptive 6Ghz+ runs by the usual suspects to help AMD save face. Dr. Who? was right, manufacturer demos should always be taken with a grain a salt.

I was surprised at the TR numbers as well, but Anandtech got 3.9ghz with stock cooling (1.52v).

Our 940 topped out at 3.9GHz, which is not bad, but after reviewing AMD’s results and seeing some early retail numbers on the forums, the expectation level for air-cooling is now set to the 4.1GHz range with the 920 hitting 3.8~3.9GHz on the right motherboard.

LiquidReactor

01-08-2009, 12:07 AM

Given Intel's price cut at the end of this month , Q9650 will take Q9550 place , while Q9550 replaces Q9450.

That's all I wanted to hear. Hopefully in the future I'd be able to replace Q6600 with Q9650 and clock it even higher. At least until octo cores become affordable for the main stream market.

largon

01-08-2009, 12:08 AM

About those OCs...
Hands up kiddies, who thinks reviewers have time to tweak (ACC, etc.)?

Zucker2k,
And Dr.Who? has just as much credibilty. Might be even less - where's that i7 6GHz?

RPGWiZaRD

01-08-2009, 12:10 AM

It took a while for AMD to catch up Core 2.

largon

01-08-2009, 12:30 AM

Considering they're dealing with an architecture that has changed very little since 2003 it's amazing they have.

savantu

01-08-2009, 12:37 AM

Considering they're dealing with an architecture that has changed very little since 2003 it's amazing they have.

The changes from K8 to K10 spread over 3 pages , that's a bit more than "very little" although you're half right , the basics are the same.

What worries me is the fact they will hold on the current uarch until 2011 , 2 full years.Skipping Westmere , it will go head to head with Sandy Bridge.

tajoh111

01-08-2009, 12:51 AM

I was surprised at the TR numbers as well, but Anandtech got 3.9ghz with stock cooling (1.52v).

If you read a bit down on the same page, he says 3.9 is not stable.

I am let down by AMD shady marketing lately. That overclocked chip was incredibly cherry picked. Similarly, it looks like leaked overclock score around the net were leaked on purpose, of again, very cherry picked numbers. AMD has done so many dirty leaks.

Atleast Dr Who said his chip was cherry picked.

The general consensus so far, is on air, the phenom II hits 3.7ghz. Certainly not bad, but considering it performs clock for clock a little worse than c2q and c2q are known to hit higher clocks than 3.7, its honestly, just enough to be competitive. If one wants the best performance, even for the dollar(socket 775), without taking into account name of brand, intel is still the way to go.

Phenom II is simply what Phenom should have been. Phenom was hyped to have better performance than the c2 architecture, and it didn't. In this case it matches the c2q architecture(actually a bit slower against the newest revisions). But it is atleast not embarrassing because it can chauk up a couple of very small wins against some of intels products.

To those that say its a affordable alternative to CI7, core I7 performs 22% better clock for clock and overclocks(which is important to the people here) 10-15%. That equates to a 30%+ percent performance delta which means they are not even in the same performance class anymore.

Correction the core i7 has a 22% performance advantage even with a ten percent frequency disadvantage.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-940,2114-10.html

So the actual performance clock for clock is 25%, so we are getting close to a 40 percent performance delta when taking into account max overclocks of both.

Heretic

01-08-2009, 01:22 AM

If you read a bit down on the same page, he says 3.9 is not stable.

I am let down by AMD shady marketing lately. That overclocked chip was incredibly cherry picked. Similarly, it looks like leaked overclock score around the net were leaked on purpose, of again, very cherry picked numbers. AMD has done so many dirty leaks.

Atleast Dr Who said his chip was cherry picked.

The general consensus so far, is on air, the phenom II hits 3.7ghz. Certainly not bad, but considering it performs clock for clock a little worse than c2q and c2q are known to hit higher clocks than 3.7, its honestly, just enough to be competitive. If one wants the best performance, even for the dollar(socket 775), without taking into account name of brand, intel is still the way to go.

Phenom II is simply what Phenom should have been. Phenom was hyped to have better performance than the c2 architecture, and it didn't. In this case it matches the c2q architecture(actually a bit slower against the newest revisions). But it is atleast not embarrassing because it can chauk up a couple of very small wins against some of intels products.

To those that say its a affordable alternative to CI7, core I7 performs 22% better clock for clock and overclocks(which is important to the people here) 10-15%. That equates to a 30%+ percent performance delta which means they are not even in the same performance class anymore.

Correction the core i7 has a 22% performance advantage even with a ten percent frequency disadvantage.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-940,2114-10.html

So the actual performance clock for clock is 25%, so we are getting close to a 40 percent performance delta when taking into account max overclocks of both.

I might be blind, but I don't see where he says 3.9GHz is not stable. He does say that 4+ GHz is not stable and that 3.45GHz was stable at stock volts except on PCMark Vantage TV/Movies and Flight Simulator X.

As for the rest of your post, I agree. PhII is just at the competitive mark, and will most likely fall from that mark if/when Intel cuts prices on their quads. If the rumors in the AT article are correct, that should be later this month.

saveus222

01-08-2009, 01:23 AM

You talk as if current C2Qs/S775 don't even exist... :p:

News flash, the performance levels of PII is right in line with C2Qs and the pricing reflects that. As many people will tell you, PII is more about competing against C2Q than Ci7.
have u been reading the reviews ?

What!? I just read 3-4 reviews and Phenom II hasn't bested any core 2 duos really so i7 even being a match..... What reviews are you reading?
question is what reviews are you reading ? :) it falls right in between Q9300 and Core i7

AKM

01-08-2009, 01:35 AM

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_phenom_ii/maxpower.gif

So basically Deneb@3Ghz without Hi-K has the same power consumption as a 3Ghz Yorkfield, awesome job I'd say.

http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=42

Leeghoofd

01-08-2009, 01:42 AM

question is what reviews are you reading ? :) it falls right in between Q9300 and Core i7

It fals inbetween the Q9300 and the rest of the Yorkfields.... not bad, but I'm pretty sad about most stable shots are
question is what reviews are you reading ? :) it falls right in between Q9300 and Core i7

It fals inbetween the Q9300 and the rest of the Yorkfields.... not bad, but I'm pretty sad about mostly just 3.8GHz stable shots wished 4ghz was more of a comon thing on high end Air, But a nice upgrade for current AMD platform users, let the price wars begin !!!

And ow boy are there strange comments in some reviews... and some ow so GPU limited, aren't some reviewers finding it strange that they get identical results with all these different CPU's...

AbelJemka

01-08-2009, 01:45 AM

duploxxx

01-08-2009, 01:58 AM

It fals inbetween the Q9300 and the rest of the Yorkfields.... not bad, but I'm pretty sad about most 3.8GHz stable shots wished 4ghz was more of a comon thing on high end Air... but a nice upgrade for current AMD platform users

And ow boy are there strange comments in some reviews...

you always find strange comments, the real strange part is how reviewers actually OC, in core2 times you see oc's with the best air coolers like ultra120 extreme, its already known phenom2 needs cool down to clock higher. Now they test on stock cooler. Where are the NB oc's????

massman

01-08-2009, 02:18 AM

onethreehill

01-08-2009, 02:29 AM

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom-ii-x4.html

maroon1

01-08-2009, 02:31 AM

The majority of those reviews show than Phenom II 940 performed worse than lower clocked Q9550

Shocker003

01-08-2009, 02:31 AM

We'll have to wait untill the extreme overclockers take these processors for a spin, I guess. There weren't that much Phenom I clockers to begin with, so I reckon a lot of people have to get used to the technology first.

+1:up:

Am equally waiting for the price and fanboys war that will soon start.
I trust the ocs posted here more than the ones from reviewers, as our members take their time to push their cpus to the limit and have time on their hands. Reviewers are always trying to beat each other to post without really taking the extra pains in ocing.

savantu

01-08-2009, 02:47 AM

have u been reading the reviews ?

question is what reviews are you reading ? :) it falls right in between Q9300 and Core i7

You know , between the 2 you missed the following :

-Q9400
-Q9450
-Q9550
-Q9650
-Q9770

Somehow , you missed the elephant sitting on the sofa in the living room.

From what I've seen , Phenom 2 fights most with Q94x0 and Q9550 , the later having a slight edge overall.

Miss Banana

01-08-2009, 02:49 AM

To me it seems reviewers have made a mess of power consumption comparisons. Some did not get cool and quiet to work, others made these comparisons depend on the chipset too much. The result is power consumption numbers that differ a lot from review to review.

Lightman

01-08-2009, 02:59 AM

Regarding clocks reached in TR review one would look at production date of that CPU - 0839. Retail is getting 0848/0850....
If you read comments on our forum made by Sampsa and Macci you would noticed that they stated on several occassions AMD review chips and early ES weren't clocking that well. Retail chips are better. Much better if you consider NB clocks up to 3.4GHz from 2.6-2.7GHz and HT 3.0 ColdBug is fixed as well. Just look at benchmarks with HT 1.9GHz NB 3.2GHz under LN2....

Other than that chip performs well considering execution units are mostly unchanged from K7 (except SSE extensions).

Intel has another 2 years of relative peace in performance segment. Then in 2011 we will see what AMD engineers are up to with Bulldozer.

Trouffman

01-08-2009, 03:05 AM

hey guys,

here is the video report from Syndrome-OC :
http://www.syndrome-oc.net/octv.php?episode=17&lang=en

Regards,

Chad Boga

01-08-2009, 03:06 AM

The PhII 940 is not outrageously priced, in fact I would say it's official price is fair enough compared to the Intel Quads.

However this is not a bargain like AMD/ATI delivered up with the 4850/70 combo, so at these prices AMD won't move a lot of units once the pent up demand of the AMD enthusiast is met.

What might hurt them more than Intel is the deteriorating economy, as they no doubt need the PhII to be more of a sales winner than the PhI, and Intel already have an established Quad market that sells well, although obviously they will be hit by the economy too.

What will be interesting to see play out is the effect the PhII has on the rest of AMD's Phenom lineup. Will there be a Halo effect that shines on them, even though they are on a less efficient architecture compared to the PhII's, or will they increasingly be viewed by the public as "brown bananas", that will only be able to be shifted with savage price discounting?

Motiv

01-08-2009, 03:06 AM

From what I've seen , Phenom 2 fights most with Q94x0 and Q9550 , the later having a slight edge overall.

I'd agree with this and I'm sure the prices will reflect it.

Chad Boga

01-08-2009, 03:07 AM

Intel has another 2 years of relative peace in performance segment. Then in 2011 we will see what AMD engineers are up to with Bulldozer.
If you are right about Intel's relative peace(and I think you are), then unless Intel wants AMD to stick around, they will have the means to put them to the sword and finally get rid of them.

G.Foyle

01-08-2009, 03:18 AM

http://pclab.pl/art34921.html

tajoh111

01-08-2009, 03:47 AM

We'll have to wait untill the extreme overclockers take these processors for a spin, I guess. There weren't that much Phenom I clockers to begin with, so I reckon a lot of people have to get used to the technology first.

HWC use phase and Ln2, and the max they hit was 4.6. Pretty good for amd, but not close to what we were seeing in the leaks.

AbelJemka

01-08-2009, 04:01 AM

HWC use phase and Ln2, and the max they hit was 4.6. Pretty good for amd, but not close to what we were seeing in the leaks.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=213657

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=213690
:rotf:

tajoh111

01-08-2009, 04:23 AM

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=213657

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=213690
:rotf:

Somethings makes me think, especially when one of the post involved macci, thats those chips were incredibly cherry picked.

It doesnt help the second event was sponsored by amd

noki

01-08-2009, 04:24 AM

naokaji

01-08-2009, 04:35 AM

If you are right about Intel's relative peace(and I think you are), then unless Intel wants AMD to stick around, they will have the means to put them to the sword and finally get rid of them.

They always had the means to wipe them out, but they chose not to and even allowed them to sell x86 cpu's..

It was always by their choice that they let AMD live, same goes for Nvidia, Via, Sis, Ati (before it became amd).
Remember, Intel has one of the biggest R&d Budgets in the IT Industry, they could get rid of any Company they see as a Competition at any time they want with only a slight temporary financial set back, then just jack up the prices once the competition is gone to make up for it.

Anyway, Phenom 2 is going to give Intel some competition in the midrange market and once the cut down phenom 2's come out (dual / tri cores) also in the budget market, but don't forget that Intel does have a ace up it's sleeve, it's the I5 and will be much cheaper than I7.

ether.real

01-08-2009, 04:50 AM

About those OCs...
Hands up kiddies, who thinks reviewers have time to tweak (ACC, etc.)?

Zucker2k,
And Dr.Who? has just as much credibilty. Might be even less - where's that i7 6GHz?

We had almost a month with these chips. No amount of tweaking would get mine over 3.7GHz.

Smalltimer

01-08-2009, 04:52 AM

Chad Boga

01-08-2009, 04:53 AM

They always had the means to wipe them out, heck, they even had to give the ok for them to even start selling cpu's...
It was always by their choice that they let AMD live, same goes for Nvidia, Via, Sis, Ati (before it became amd).
Remember, Intel has one of the biggest R&d Budgets in the IT Industry, they could get rid of any Company they see as a Competition at any time they want with only a slight temporary financial set back, then just jack up the prices once the competition is gone to make up for it.
Not so. If they tried blatant price dumping, they would run afoul of the Federal Trade Commission and run the real risk of being broken up.

If you go back to the time when Intel only had the Prescott, AMD were so much stronger it just wasn't feasible that Intel could have put them out of business.

But since AMD scored an own goal purchasing ATI and then compounded things by losing their competitive edge, Intel are now in a position(also helped along by the World Recession) to put AMD out of business if they so choose, and most likely avoid sanction by the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department.

Anyway, Phenom 2 is going to give Intel some competition in the midrange market and once the cut down phenom 2's come out (dual / tri cores) also in the budget market, but don't forget that Intel does have a ace up it's sleeve, it's the I5 and will be much cheaper than I7.
Oh I haven't forgotten, that is why I believe AMD's position is so parlous, as their roadmap shows they have nothing to compete effectively against it, and then there is the prospect of 32nm Westmere in 2010.

That could mean that for all of 2010, AMD's competitive position against Intel is actually worse than at ANY time in the last 2.5years and we have already seen the devastation that Intel wreaked upon them with Conroe against the K8.

Hornet331

01-08-2009, 04:56 AM

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/prozessoren/2009/test_amd_phenom_ii_x4_920_940_black_edition/#abschnitt_einleitung

german review, but they have min fps in there game tests. :)

Miss Banana

01-08-2009, 04:57 AM

It is in a way worrisome that AMD will have to last quite a long time with this architecture, but AMD has a few benefits when compared to intel.

1. Intel allready went ddr3, AMD still has to. This will give a performance increase.

2. This is AMD's first 45nm chip, while intel has more experience in this area. The high overclocks for denebs, the relatively high starting frequencies compared to quad core intel starting frquencies, and the excellent power consumption all point towards the same. AMD will end up with higher stock clocks than intel. (phenom II vs I7)

Let's hope that with higher clocks and proces improvements + ddr3, AMD will be able to stay competative untill they have their next big thing ready.

MAS

01-08-2009, 05:02 AM

http://pics.computerbase.de/2/3/7/6/1/33_m.png

look at vcore mmm...

Chad Boga

01-08-2009, 05:11 AM

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/prozessoren/2009/test_amd_phenom_ii_x4_920_940_black_edition/#abschnitt_einleitung

german review, but they have min fps in there game tests. :)
But look at the video card the fools use

Nvidia GeForce 9800 GTX+, 55 nm, 512 MB GDDR3, Engineering Sample

:shakes:

Hornet331

01-08-2009, 05:14 AM

2. This is AMD's first 45nm chip, while intel has more experience in this area. The high overclocks for denebs, the relatively high starting frequencies compared to quad core intel starting frquencies, and the excellent power consumption all point towards the same. AMD will end up with higher stock clocks than intel. (phenom II vs I7)

Well if it goes for rendering, you need a 5ghz P2 to score the same as a 3,6ghz Ci7 with HT in CB10.

Or a 3,6ghz P2 to beat a stock Ci7 2,66 (scalled). In multithreaded apps ci7 is just brutal, thanx to HT.
AMD needs some serious increase in stock clocks if they what to stay competetive with Ci5 in H209.

v_rr

01-08-2009, 05:20 AM

AMD needs some serious increase in stock clocks if they what to stay competetive with Ci5 in H209.

Some Ph2 at 3.2-3.4 Ghz?
Or bring the 6-core Opteron to Desktop?

[XC] riptide

01-08-2009, 05:21 AM

Some Ph2 at 3.2-3.4 Ghz?
Or bring the 6-core Opteron to Desktop?

How about a 3.4Ghz Stock 6 core Opteron... on desktop. :cool:

Slay0r

01-08-2009, 05:25 AM

http://pics.computerbase.de/2/3/7/6/1/33_m.png

look at vcore mmm...The one shown in that CPU-Z pic is core VID aka nominal voltage, not Vcore aka actual voltage.

Macadamia

01-08-2009, 05:26 AM

riptide;3560816']How about a 3.4Ghz Stock 6 core Opteron... on desktop. :cool:

I'm very impressed by the initial power @ load numbers. This makes Istanbul far more interesting than we thought.

If AMD doesn't screw up power load of Istanbul < 1.5x "PC" of Deneb since cache isn't growing at all, and TDP never scales linearly vs cores.

Does that mean a 125W six-core @ 3Ghz that uses <100W in real life loads, pops up?
Server (2Ghz -> 2.8Ghz) seems to be saved because of this, but desktop might not like it so much.

OTOH AMD will probably earn more money with the Athlon X4 quads for OEM, compared to the total of Phenom I. :ROTF:

Somethings makes me think, especially when one of the post involved macci, thats those chips were incredibly cherry picked.

It doesnt help the second event was sponsored by amd

And you whine when we rag on [T]OCP. :rolleyes:

Leeghoofd

01-08-2009, 05:28 AM

Just watch stable overclock reached by reviewer with i7 and end users overclocks ;)

Well I can trust Sky (Hardwarecanucks), he's always been very objective and either he got a bad sample like he's suspecting or things don't taste as creamy as presented

Secondly these motherboards should have matured pretty well, compared to the I7 ones with the X58 chipset... if you only have one bios to try not much you can do...

you always find strange comments, the real strange part is how reviewers actually OC, in core2 times you see oc's with the best air coolers like ultra120 extreme, its already known phenom2 needs cool down to clock higher. Now they test on stock cooler. Where are the NB oc's????

With strange comments I mean big errors in the reviews : inversed diagrams, wrong conclusions (maybe due to the inversed diagrams), running tests on a 4870 512 with 16xx res and concluding the Phenom keeps pace with Intels flagship in all the games : for me the vidcard bottlenecks as every cpu in the test is at the same pace, and so on...

I hope Hardwarecanucks and madshrimps as websites can bring out some nicer results then what I see today or even the end users... Be aware that many were eagerly awaiting these results and when reading this will have the same initial feeling that I'm having right now... I hope for AMD all them review sites got it wrong

I saw some True's, Noctua's and OCZ vendetta coolers in the reviews and ofcourse they had the better results then just 3.6-3.8Ghz stable

We'll have to wait untill the extreme overclockers take these processors for a spin, I guess. There weren't that much Phenom I clockers to begin with, so I reckon a lot of people have to get used to the technology first.

Hope you get one of these soon man. Plus I got a True with 1366 socket ( dual fan ready) waiting for you sir PJ after the weekend

Hornet331

01-08-2009, 05:31 AM

riptide;3560816']How about a 3.4Ghz Stock 6 core Opteron... on desktop. :cool:

I wouldn't mind that. :cool:

Chad Boga

01-08-2009, 05:42 AM

riptide;3560816']How about a 3.4Ghz Stock 6 core Opteron... on desktop. :cool:
When will 6 core from AMD be available? What does their roadmap suggest?

Shintai

01-08-2009, 06:11 AM

When will 6 core from AMD be available? What does their roadmap suggest?

Late 2009. Servers only and most likely very expensive.

Chad Boga

01-08-2009, 06:14 AM

Late 2009. Servers only and most likely very expensive.
Just in time to run into 32nm Westmere.

Slay0r

01-08-2009, 06:29 AM

Late 2009. Servers only and most likely very expensive.

Are you suggesting that in the past there has been a brand new architecture server processor which was cheap? :p:

Drwho?

01-08-2009, 06:31 AM

AbelJemka

01-08-2009, 06:39 AM

Great, so, they can get close to the Core 2 Quad Q9400, with the top end of their CPUs, that means they are about one generation and half behind, the gap is still increasing ...
(Q9400 is in the middle of the Core 2 Quad selection)
I would not call that a success if I was the Green performance guy.
The best way to help them is to stay honnest about it, just my 2 cents. (Remember the Pentium 4 time frame, it takes to understand your problem to fix it, I learned this)
Which Quad sells the best, that's the real question? ;)
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=20

Compared to the Core 2 Quad Q9400, the Phenom II X4 940 is clearly the better pick. While it's not faster across the board, more often than not the 940 is equal to or faster than the Q9400. If Intel can drop the price of the Core 2 Quad Q9550 to the same price as the Phenom II X4 940 then the recommendation goes back to Intel.
I wait Intel price cut to buy Drwho?! Make us happy :D

Hornet331

01-08-2009, 06:44 AM

I wait Intel price cut to buy Drwho?! Make us happy :D

read the review you have linked carefully, then you find your answer *cough* page 4 *cough*. :p:

Chad Boga

01-08-2009, 06:45 AM

it is good enough, for 90% of the people out there even a single core chip is enough

Then why did the K8 do so well against the P4? At the time, what you have said applies about the PhII now, applied to the P4 in its day too.

inCore

01-08-2009, 06:53 AM

Yay for price cuts. It's also a lot more lucrative to buy a Q9550 when one already has a Intel based system, even if AMD CPUs are the same price there is no way that I am ever selling my motherboard to get an AMD CPU.

largon

01-08-2009, 06:54 AM

Chad Boga,
What do you mean "K8 did so well against the P4"?
"Someone" made sure K8 didn't do so well in the market.

Chad Boga

01-08-2009, 06:55 AM

Chad Boga,
What do you mean "K8 did so well against the P4"?
"Someone" made sure K8 didn't do so well in the market.
The K8 was clearly AMD's glory days, if performance doesn't matter now, how come it did a few years ago?

Donnie27

01-08-2009, 07:05 AM

Just in time to run into 32nm Westmere.

That pricing sets up the Phenom II X4 940 as a direct rival to Intel's Core 2 Quad Q9400, a 2.66GHz processor whose street price is about $269 right now. That's not far from the $284 list price of the Core i7-920, but AMD rightly argues that the additional cost of an X58 motherboard and DDR3 memory puts the Core i7-920 in a different price category. Meanwhile, the 920's closest competition may be the Core 2 Quad Q9300, which sells for around $240-250, although one could make a case for the similar but slightly lower spec Q8300.

This is not that "rightly argues" since AMD and all of their fans are talking about Ph2 compared to Q9550, Q9400 and Q9300. Then that's WTF the price should be compared to, not i7. I visited a bud with Q9550 running at 4GHz, with a $46 3rd party air cooler and $119 mobo with Cross Fire. If i7 isn't the performance comparison, it shouldn't be in the price comparison as well:rolleyes:

Oh well, I'll wait for the Q9550 price cuts at the end of this month:( Too bad Intel doesn't have enough competition to ship the i5's sooner.:rolleyes: I'd be on it like a Chicken on a June Bug,:rofl::rofl:

largon

01-08-2009, 07:08 AM

I think K8 got "special treatment" because it demonstrated how a comparably tiny company totally defeated the multiple times more resourceful market leader.

Miss Banana

01-08-2009, 07:09 AM

Great, so, they can get close to the Core 2 Quad Q9400, with the top end of their CPUs, that means they are about one generation and half behind, the gap is still increasing ...
(Q9400 is in the middle of the Core 2 Quad selection)
I would not call that a success if I was the Green performance guy.
The best way to help them is to stay honnest about it, just my 2 cents. (Remember the Pentium 4 time frame, it takes to understand your problem to fix it, I learned this)

Remember that we are talking about AMD's first 45nm cpu compared to intels matured 45nm cpu's.
Add to this the fact that intel is allready using ddr3 and AMD has yet to reap the benefits of ddr3, and it's easy to see the new phenom will make AMD more competative, not less.

Of course we can keep on whining about how much generations/years/performance AMD is still behind, but while we do that, let's also keep an eye on the direction in which AMD is moving.
Which is currently the right direction as far as I can see.

Chad Boga

01-08-2009, 07:10 AM

I think K8 got "special treatment" because it demonstrated how a comparably tiny company totally defeated the multiple times more resourceful market leader.
So rather than its performance being the motivating factor, people flocked to it just because they pulled off a David vs Goliath act?

Micutzu

01-08-2009, 07:13 AM

Romanian review:

http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-phenom-ii-un-nou-inceput

Chad Boga

01-08-2009, 07:14 AM

Remember that we are talking about AMD's first 45nm cpu compared to intels matured 45nm cpu's.
Add to this the fact that intel is allready using ddr3 and AMD has yet to reap the benefits of ddr3, and it's easy to see the new phenom will make AMD more competative, not less.
AMD is more competitive today than yesterday vis a vis Intel, but are they more competitive than was the case before the launch of Nehalem?

If the answer to that question is "Yes", then will that competitiveness be maintained for any great length of time when one factors in possibly pricing movements and new products that will launch in the near future?

Zucker2k

01-08-2009, 07:19 AM

Remember that we are talking about AMD's first 45nm cpu compared to intels matured 45nm cpu's.
Add to this the fact that intel is allready using ddr3 and AMD has yet to reap the benefits of ddr3, and it's easy to see the new phenom will make AMD more competative, not less.Yes, and it was the same for 65nm and I bet it'll be the same for 32nm; the fact is that until Intel seriously blunders, AMD is going to have a hard task retaking the performance crown. Personally, I see a very focused Intel beating AMD to the core shrink and maintaining their edge for the foreseeable future.

@Donnie: Where are the usual suspects? It's time to defend their honor. :yepp:

Donnie27

01-08-2009, 07:19 AM

The K8 was clearly AMD's glory days, if performance doesn't matter now, how come it did a few years ago?

Kind of funny isn't it? P4 type arguments for AMD are fair and OK:up:

largon
What do you mean "K8 did so well against the P4"?
"Someone" made sure K8 didn't do so well in the market.

HP and Dell said the K8's platform sucked. Once the platform got better AMD's market position did too. Even with Premium Prices, AMD's market share went from 14.5% to almost 24% and even out sold Intel in the American OEM Desktop market, finally got Dell to sell their systems, became Volume constrained and made money. The only thing stopping them from gaining even more market share was Maxed out production. Conroe change all of that, not back room deals. Even after Conroe shipped, there were back orders for AMD processors that went months without being filled.

saveus222

01-08-2009, 07:46 AM

You know , between the 2 you missed the following :

-Q9400
-Q9450
-Q9550
-Q9650
-Q9770

Somehow , you missed the elephant sitting on the sofa in the living room.

From what I've seen , Phenom 2 fights most with Q94x0 and Q9550 , the later having a slight edge overall.

:banana::banana::banana::banana: im sorry that was meant to be Q9450.. even then i agree i missed the q9550... what im trying to get at with "have you read the reviews is" different reviewers in that list of reviews are showing different performance levels. theres one that shows the X4 940 is slower than a q6600... so theres no concrete agreed positioning right now.. i guess your facts are from anandtech and toms.. guru3d shows something else. i dono if they got different chips or one used retail while the other used ES.. ???

G0ldBr1ck

01-08-2009, 07:57 AM

The Phenom I Overclocks on the newest revisions are getting about as high as these PHII in these reviews. If AMD drops the price even more on the PH I It could possibly have a better price/perf ratio

largon

01-08-2009, 07:57 AM

So rather than its performance being the motivating factor, people flocked to it just because they pulled off a David vs Goliath act?Indeed.
K8 wasn't performance-wise a huge improvement over P4, feel free to look it up. K8 was usually faster in gaming, but in everything else, including professional apps, content creation and popular benchmarks like SPi/3DMark P4 was better. K8's high perf/W and perf/clk were the only striking advantages. But P4 wasn't toothless. Then ofcourse, Intel ran into a power/freq wall with Netburst which put P4 in a standstill and lead to cancellation of the original Nehalem. Figure they were more concentrated on getting Merom out.

So yes, K8 had a halo-effect as "David" which upheld it's image as the performance part - and the halo certainly wasn't dimmed by the technologically idle Intel.

Chad Boga

01-08-2009, 08:05 AM

Indeed.
K8 wasn't performance-wise a huge improvement over P4, feel free to look it up. K8 was usually faster in gaming, but in everything else, including professional apps, content creation and popular benchmarks like SPi/3DMark P4 was better. K8's high perf/W and perf/clk were the only striking advantages. But P4 wasn't toothless.
From the moment it was clear what a debacle Intel's release of Prescott was, up until they released Conroe, I never had any interest in Intel as a possible system for myself or any of the people whom I have guided in getting systems.

My recollection is that K8 slaughtered P4 in gaming unless the benchmarking was GPU limited and that it was somewhat even in non-gaming applications.

Review after review chose the K8 as the better chip for the home user, so as you picked up LOE's contention that performance wasn't a factor in the K8's markedly improved marketshare, I would very much disagree with this contention.

Without the performance, K8 would never have garnered so much favourable professional and fan press.

Mechromancer

01-08-2009, 08:06 AM

I would like to see a PII with a CoolIT Domino overclocked. I'm seriously reconsidering this expensive Core i7 build I have taped out on Newegg. I only use a computer to surf the net and game so all the extra performance Core i7 gives in synthetic benchmarks isn't what I'm basing my buying decision on. The PII 940 gets the job done with multi-threaded games and I was very impressed with the HL2 scores. I will save $350 by going PII-940 as opposed to Core i7 920 just in motherboard and memory costs. That will allow me to add two OCZ Vertex SSDs and complete this build finally next week.

demonkevy666

01-08-2009, 08:06 AM

I don't think putting Westminster out this year is a good idea for intel with the marking going the way it is but that can change.
also it looks there isn't going to a be a second stepping for i7 on 45nm. they're just moving right on to 32nm Westminster

AMD could skip 32nm push a 16 bulldozer out by researching more on 22nm and design and development.

I would like to see a PII with a CoolIT Domino overclocked. I'm seriously reconsidering this expensive Core i7 build I have taped out on Newegg. I only use a computer to surf the net and game so all the extra performance Core i7 gives in synthetic benchmarks isn't what I'm basing my buying decision on. The PII 940 gets the job done with multi-threaded games and I was very impressed with the HL2 scores. I will save $350 by going PII-940 as opposed to Core i7 920 just in motherboard and memory costs. That will allow me to add two OCZ Vertex SSDs and complete this build finally next week.

Phenom II should handle SSD extremely well.

saveus222

01-08-2009, 08:09 AM

the lack of high-performance AMD processors inevitably slows down the introduction of new technologies and performance increase in the Intel camp. Therefore, we were hoping until the very last moment that new Phenom II X4 CPUs will start the renaissance era for AMD.

found this quote with the xbitlabs conclusion. lack of amd performance slows down innovation in intel ?? what the hell is nehalem then.. ?? :ROTF:

Chad Boga

01-08-2009, 08:11 AM

AMD could skip 32nm push a 16 bulldozer out by researching more on 22nm and design and development.
Completely and utterly impractical, I can only imagine you are joking?

savantu

01-08-2009, 08:17 AM

...

AMD could skip 32nm push a 16 bulldozer out by researching more on 22nm and design and development.

I didn't know they were involved in the pancake business where moving to a new node is as simple as getting a new frying pan ?;)

inCore

01-08-2009, 08:25 AM

found this quote with the xbitlabs conclusion. lack of amd performance slows down innovation in intel ?? what the hell is nehalem then.. ?? :ROTF:

I suppose we could be talking about i5.

freeloader

01-08-2009, 08:30 AM

If you read a bit down on the same page, he says 3.9 is not stable.

I am let down by AMD shady marketing lately. That overclocked chip was incredibly cherry picked. Similarly, it looks like leaked overclock score around the net were leaked on purpose, of again, very cherry picked numbers. AMD has done so many dirty leaks.

Atleast Dr Who said his chip was cherry picked.

The general consensus so far, is on air, the phenom II hits 3.7ghz. Certainly not bad, but considering it performs clock for clock a little worse than c2q and c2q are known to hit higher clocks than 3.7, its honestly, just enough to be competitive. If one wants the best performance, even for the dollar(socket 775), without taking into account name of brand, intel is still the way to go.

Phenom II is simply what Phenom should have been. Phenom was hyped to have better performance than the c2 architecture, and it didn't. In this case it matches the c2q architecture(actually a bit slower against the newest revisions). But it is atleast not embarrassing because it can chauk up a couple of very small wins against some of intels products.

To those that say its a affordable alternative to CI7, core I7 performs 22% better clock for clock and overclocks(which is important to the people here) 10-15%. That equates to a 30%+ percent performance delta which means they are not even in the same performance class anymore.

Correction the core i7 has a 22% performance advantage even with a ten percent frequency disadvantage.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-940,2114-10.html

So the actual performance clock for clock is 25%, so we are getting close to a 40 percent performance delta when taking into account max overclocks of both.

Quit your :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing whining. AMD shady marketing. They all :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing do it, every single manufacturer out there. They all :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing cheat left, right and center and everybody laps it up.

cegras

01-08-2009, 08:43 AM

I'm still a bit surprised people are comparing the VID from either companies like they're directly comparable. Different process ..

Zucker2k

01-08-2009, 08:45 AM

Quit your :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing whining. AMD shady marketing. They all :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing do it, every single manufacturer out there. They all :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing cheat left, right and center and everybody laps it up.Dude, relax it's just hardware. On a side note, did anybody take a look at the batch consignment of the randomly picked cpus that were tested in the AMD demos? Those may be the ones to get.

Hornet331

01-08-2009, 09:00 AM

I'm still a bit surprised people are comparing the VID from either companies like they're directly comparable. Different process ..

Well same could be said about temps, considering the subpar implementation of thermal probes on AMD cpus...

Morais

01-08-2009, 09:04 AM

Shintai

01-08-2009, 09:06 AM

Its already available at newegg, 920 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103472) & 940 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103471)...I cant understand why they are labelled at 125W because all denebs consume less power than high-end yorkies, which are rated 95W....very strange

Not really...

http://techreport.com/r.x/phenom-ii/cine-power-peak.gif

Maybe if you pair the yorkfields with an nVidia chipset. Or if just using idle numbers?

ryboto

01-08-2009, 09:10 AM

Not really...

http://techreport.com/r.x/phenom-ii/cine-power-peak.gif

Maybe if you pair the yorkfields with an nVidia chipset. Or if just using idle numbers?

Look to Lost-Circuits review, and the table that was already posted in this thread. They do consume around what yorkfields do, but it can also depend on the motherboard.

Shintai

01-08-2009, 09:15 AM

Look to Lost-Circuits review, and the table that was already posted in this thread. They do consume around what yorkfields do, but it can also depend on the motherboard.

In that chart I see a QX9650 use less power than a PH2 940 (Lowest of the 2 PH 940 numbers). All the rest of the yorkfields are missing besides the QX9770. Plus everything is old steppings I bet on the rest. There aint even a Q6600 there.

So no?

Its a THG wannabee site it seems.

Manabu

01-08-2009, 09:18 AM

Kaldor

01-08-2009, 09:19 AM

I have to say, I am disappointed. I wasnt expecting i7 levels of performance out the P2, but was hoping that the 940 would about = the Q9650, which it clearly does not. I think some trickle down will happen as other have stated, it should drop the price on upper C2Q's. Oh well, I guess its i7 on my next machine.

Shintai

01-08-2009, 09:20 AM

It seems like AM3 processors will be backwards compatible with AM2+ (and AM2 too?). But that those AM2+ phenom II will not be compatible with AM3.

http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2009/01/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/stars-8.jpg

Yep. Its abit like buying the cat in the sack with these AM2+, unless you want a complete upgrade of everything next time.

925 should come next month. 945 in April.

Morais

01-08-2009, 09:25 AM

Not really...

Maybe if you pair the yorkfields with an nVidia chipset. Or if just using idle numbers?
http://techreport.com/r.x/phenom-ii/cine-power-idle.gif
http://hothardware.com/articleimages/Item1252/power.png
http://images.tweaktown.com/imagebank/ap2940_test16.gif
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2009/01/08/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/13

Well, doesnt change my point of view in rating denebs from 125W to 95W

ryboto

01-08-2009, 09:26 AM

In that chart I see a QX9650 use less power than a PH2 940 (Lowest of the 2 PH 940 numbers). All the rest of the yorkfields are missing besides the QX9770. Plus everything is old steppings I bet on the rest. There aint even a Q6600 there.

So no?

Its a THG wannabee site it seems.

wow, you really pick and choose what you read in people's posts. I said "around".
at idle:
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_phenom_ii/winidle.gif

and at load:
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_phenom_ii/maxpower.gif

Even if it's an old stepping, how much has power consumption improved on those chips? Do you know? 68W vs ~65W, so they are "around" the same, or approximately similar. I remember seeing measurements of a Q6600, putting it at ~70-80W at 2.4ghz.

Glow9

01-08-2009, 09:40 AM

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2009/01/08/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/

In this review when they pair Yorkfields with ddr2 ram the gap between deneb and yorkfield is very little...I think that with am3 mobos and dd3 ram...the step behind i7 will be deneb

You mean a step behind yorkfield on a ddr3 board.

Which Quad sells the best, that's the real question? ;)
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=20

I wait Intel price cut to buy Drwho?! Make us happy :D
Might happen their sales are down 23% and not moving expensive mobos is not going to make their partners happy I'm sure.

Anyone else think www.bjorn3d.com review sucked? looking at the resolutions they used, then with them Using a Phenom II thats OCed against a stock Intel just seems stupid.

Since most reviewers have been sitting on demo chips for a while I think all of these should state if they are retail or not since I'm guessing most aren't. I think when I see someone on here take pics of their own opened box that will have more credibility.

Donnie27

01-08-2009, 09:51 AM

Yes, and it was the same for 65nm and I bet it'll be the same for 32nm; the fact is that until Intel seriously blunders, AMD is going to have a hard task retaking the performance crown. Personally, I see a very focused Intel beating AMD to the core shrink and maintaining their edge for the foreseeable future.

@Donnie: Where are the usual suspects? It's time to defend their honor. :yepp:

Don't know but still waiting for the Damage Control:up:

Rammsteiner

01-08-2009, 10:02 AM

Argh, I still dont get it.

WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH PICKING ON POWER CONSUMPTION!?. Seriously, if you care about environment, then commit suicide, that's the most green thing you can do. If you care about your wallet, dont look at high end parts and cry they use so much.

Just like a low power CPU wouldnt be able to run your 4 GPU's and Far Cry 2, a high-end part cant be low power. I thought this was basics.

Although, it's quite dissapointing, on the otherhand it's still better than Agena so whatever:p:

Zucker2k

01-08-2009, 10:05 AM

Don't know but still waiting for the Damage Control:up:Tough task.

For me, this visualizes what some have argued a lot here. It's about power consumption, and while PII may have better idling power consumption than Ci7, if you're a Ci7 owner, the graph below is why you love your system.

Tech Report:

We can quantify efficiency even better by considering specifically the amount of energy used to render the scene. Since the different systems completed the render at different speeds, we've isolated the render period for each system. We've then computed the amount of energy used by each system to render the scene. This method should account for both power use and, to some degree, performance, because shorter render times may lead to less energy consumption.

Jacky

01-08-2009, 10:08 AM

AMD could skip 32nm push a 16 bulldozer out by researching more on 22nm and design and development.

I didn't know they were involved in the pancake business where moving to a new node is as simple as getting a new frying pan ?;)
Oh, this made me laugh so hard. Pure genius. :D

Other than that.. mhm PII doesn't look that bad. Is there someone going to crunch the numbers and give us the average changes? e.g. clock for clock vs 65nm intel, cache castrated 45nm, 45nm, nehalem, etc
If no, I'll do it (I will probably do it anyway).

bingo13

01-08-2009, 10:15 AM

you always find strange comments, the real strange part is how reviewers actually OC, in core2 times you see oc's with the best air coolers like ultra120 extreme, its already known phenom2 needs cool down to clock higher. Now they test on stock cooler. Where are the NB oc's????

Even though I got our chip stable at 3.9, it more or less sucked when trying to clock HTT or NB speeds up. The chip would lock at 211 HTT and NB set over 2200 resulted in a no-POST situation on six different boards, so the chip was not that good in my opinion. We have three retail chips arriving today to test and we will push HTT/NB as mentioned in the review. AMD told us that week 50 and up parts are seeing significant improvements in both core clock and HTT clock capabilities compared to our ES samples.

Eastcoasthandle

01-08-2009, 10:18 AM

AMD Phenom II Review
Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492)
Bit-tech (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2009/01/08/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/1)
Computer Base (http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/prozessoren/2009/test_amd_phenom_ii_x4_920_940_black_edition/)
Driver Heaven (http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews.php?reviewid=697)
EB (http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=667&Itemid=27)
Guru3d (http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/)
H (http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==)
Hexus (http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=16757)
Hot Hardware (http://hothardware.com/Articles/Enter-The-Dragon-AMD-Phenom-II-X4-940/)
Lab 501 (http://lab501.ro/procesoare-chipseturi/amd-phenom-ii-un-nou-inceput) (Romanian)
Legion Hardware (http://www.legionhardware.com/html/doc.php?id=802)
Legit Review (http://www.legitreviews.com/article/860/1/)
Lost Circuit (http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=42)
Over Clockers Club (http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenomii940/)
Tech Report (http://techreport.com/articles.x/16147)
Xbit Labs (http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom-ii-x4.html)

[XC] gomeler

01-08-2009, 10:25 AM

I am certain that the reason so many overclocks by reviewers were so low was the sheer lack of experience with the systems. I was afraid of blowing up my sample before the launch date so I stuck with a conservative 1.45vCPU which yielded a paltry 3800MHz. Now that the article is live, I'm blasting 1.55vCPU through this chip at 4200MHz and climbing :up:

The biggest issue I have though is the lack of temperature readings, I'm currently using a thermalprobe wedged up against the IHS of the actual CPU to get a ballpark figure :-\ It's reading around 55C at idle while the thermal diodes on the chip still read 19C :down:

Zucker2k

01-08-2009, 10:30 AM

gomeler;3561547']I am certain that the reason so many overclocks by reviewers were so low was the sheer lack of experience with the systems. I was afraid of blowing up my sample before the launch date so I stuck with a conservative 1.45vCPU which yielded a paltry 3800MHz. Now that the article is live, I'm blasting 1.55vCPU through this chip at 4200MHz and climbing :up:

The biggest issue I have though is the lack of temperature readings, I'm currently using a thermalprobe wedged up against the IHS of the actual CPU to get a ballpark figure :-\ It's reading around 55C at idle while the thermal diodes on the chip still read 19C :down:That's a bit toasty; is 4.2Ghz stable, benchable? Nice clocks.

Eternalightwith

01-08-2009, 10:37 AM

NB at 3.4 ?!?! :shocked:

if you consider NB clocks up to 3.4GHz from 2.6-2.7GHz and...

[XC] gomeler

01-08-2009, 10:42 AM

That's a bit toasty; is 4.2Ghz stable, benchable? Nice clocks.

This chip won't last long :shrug: Next week it gets 2.0vCPU and -196 :D It is stable and benchable for everything but Cinebench x64 SMP. For some reason Cinebench x64 just kills this CPU, everything else including Cinebench x32 SMP runs fine :shakes:

Lightman

01-08-2009, 10:42 AM

Even though I got our chip stable at 3.9, it more or less sucked when trying to clock HTT or NB speeds up. The chip would lock at 211 HTT and NB set over 2200 resulted in a no-POST situation on six different boards, so the chip was not that good in my opinion. We have three retail chips arriving today to test and we will push HTT/NB as mentioned in the review. AMD told us that week 50 and up parts are seeing significant improvements in both core clock and HTT clock capabilities compared to our ES samples.

Exactly what I've said in earlier in this thread.
You seem to have oldest samples of revision RB-C2 I've seen on internet. Anything from 0839 to 0843.
At least in Europe retail stock is 0850 and onwards. Tomorrow I should find out what we have in UK.
Granted it came from Macci, but he already demonstrated NB clocks in the range of 3.3GHz on a 0850 retail chip. Also HondaGuy (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3556599&postcount=113), member of XS, has shown close to 3GHz NB.

I wonder how much further they can improve it in RB-C3 revision.

PS. Have you already received AM3 platforms for evaluation? I hope the answer for this question is not under NDA :)

[XC] gomeler

01-08-2009, 10:44 AM

Is there a listing of the various weeks? Here's my chip, 0843. Don't know anybody keeping track, 0850 retail silicon globally? Was told mine was a retail sample from AMD :shrugs:

http://legitreviews.com/images/reviews/860/Phenom_II_IHS.jpg

Shintai

01-08-2009, 10:48 AM

gomeler;3561547']The biggest issue I have though is the lack of temperature readings, I'm currently using a thermalprobe wedged up against the IHS of the actual CPU to get a ballpark figure :-\ It's reading around 55C at idle while the thermal diodes on the chip still read 19C :down:

Pretty much confirms what alot have been saying while people reported ultra low temps. They simply read wrong data or just bugged diodes.

For gaming Phenom 2 looks horrible. With basicly Q9400 area for the 940.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-phenom-ii-x4/charts/ut3.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-phenom-ii-x4/charts/wic.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-phenom-ii-x4/charts/crysis.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-phenom-ii-x4/charts/fc2.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-phenom-ii-x4/charts/l4d.png

Thats a LOOOONG road to 2011 for Phenom 2. 3.2 or 3.4Ghz I guess with a 2ghz NB (AM3 is 2Ghz NB) might be the fastest on stock in its lifetime. 3.0Ghz seems to be the top for 2009 according to AMD roadmaps.

i5 in summer 2009. 32nm i7 in winter 2009. 32nm i5 in 2010. 32nm i8? in late 2010....

[XC] gomeler

01-08-2009, 10:54 AM

Diodes are broken. BIOS reads 17C to 19C, AOD reads 19C no matter what.

demonkevy666

01-08-2009, 10:55 AM

Pretty much confirms what alot have been saying while people reported ultra low temps. They simply read wrong data or just bugged diodes.

no his chip senor is probably broken or never worked at all.

hondaguys temps changed when OC.

gOJDO

01-08-2009, 11:06 AM

savantu

01-08-2009, 11:22 AM

freeloader

01-08-2009, 11:23 AM

Dude, relax it's just hardware. On a side note, did anybody take a look at the batch consignment of the randomly picked cpus that were tested in the AMD demos? Those may be the ones to get.

I'm relaxed. I'm just tired of reading all the BS that people spew.

I'll tell everyone here. GET OFF THE UPGRADE TRAIN AND SAVE YOURSELF SOME AGGREVATION AND MONEY.

ryboto

01-08-2009, 11:25 AM

For gaming Phenom 2 looks horrible. With basicly Q9400 area for the 940.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-phenom-ii-x4/charts/ut3.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-phenom-ii-x4/charts/wic.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-phenom-ii-x4/charts/crysis.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-phenom-ii-x4/charts/fc2.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/amd-phenom-ii-x4/charts/l4d.png

How many people are still gaming on 15'' CRT's? These are CPU bound tests, no? Just about all of us here are using higher resolutions, the story is just as grim when we up the quality?

savantu

01-08-2009, 11:30 AM

How many people are still gaming on 15'' CRT's? These are CPU bound tests, no? Just about all of us here are using higher resolutions, the story is just as grim when we up the quality?

98% of people are using 1280/1024 or less.I consider this resolution to be far more representative than those where you need a high end card only to get over 20fps.

Secondly , the point is to show CPU power.It pointless to go GPU limited where both a dual core and a i7 965 have the same score while their computing power is different by a factor of 3-4x.

At the very least , it shows which CPU is better positioned to handle future , more demanding games.

cegras

01-08-2009, 11:38 AM

98% of people are using 1280/1024 or less.I consider this resolution to be far more representative than those where you need a high end card only to get over 20fps.

Secondly , the point is to show CPU power.It pointless to go GPU limited where both a dual core and a i7 965 have the same score while their computing power is different by a factor of 3-4x.

At the very least , it shows which CPU is better positioned to handle future , more demanding games.

Hang on, hang on a second. Before even debating your percentage figure, don't you agree that it is paradoxical to suggest that people buy a Q9400 or Core i7 to game at 19" resolution?

(Spoiler: If you had the money to buy that, you might as well have upgraded to a higher resolution in the first place)

I mean, people on that kind of resolution will still be running dual cores and 9600GT's .. like me!

ryboto

01-08-2009, 11:40 AM

98% of people are using 1280/1024 or less.I consider this resolution to be far more representative than those where you need a high end card only to get over 20fps.

Secondly , the point is to show CPU power.It pointless to go GPU limited where both a dual core and a i7 965 have the same score while their computing power is different by a factor of 3-4x.

At the very least , it shows which CPU is better positioned to handle future , more demanding games.

I can't argue your first point, because I can't say for a fact, as you have, that that is the resolution 98% of people use. I doubt that's the case for the buyers interested in purchasing a Quad core system. edit: Cegras beat me to the point I was trying to make while I was writing! kudos!

I would also contest the justification based on your second point. I would much rather see how it performs at all resolutions, to get an idea of the performance scaling.

Your third point makes the most sense out of the three, and I agree with it.

MrMojoZ

01-08-2009, 11:44 AM

Hang on, hang on a second. Before even debating your percentage figure, don't you agree that it is paradoxical to suggest that people buy a Q9400 or Core i7 to game at 19" resolution?

I'd say anything he could post to show Intel in a more postive light is fair game.

Who would have thought that the Phenom II review thread would have turned into a pro-Intel dumping ground. :rolleyes:

Shintai

01-08-2009, 11:45 AM

Eastcoasthandle

01-08-2009, 11:47 AM

I think we need to hold off until we see results using DDR3. That should give a more clear picture of where PII stands IMO.

duploxxx

01-08-2009, 11:50 AM

Let's not forget that the first review was made by the hwbox.gr! Their results were inline with the results we see from today's reviews. So some hardcore AMD fanboys who were bi*ching at the results are owing an apology to the greek gurus.

So to sum it up:
- Deneb is great only as an upgrade for those who have AM2/AM2+ platforms.
- It offers no advantage over what is available on the market for quite some time.

and buying a dead platform with no new cpu releases at all is a better solution according to you.

as if all already own a microarchitecture and if so willing to keep the board and is at least @ p35. that's what some call narrow view. joined the shintel club again?

it performs good enough to compete at current price point nothing more nothing less, oc is also more then competitive enough not to mention any decent review with nb oc to 2,4-2,6.

MrMojoZ

01-08-2009, 11:50 AM

If we argue about the res...why even buy a Phenom 1/2 in the first place? The X2 would do fine...

Seems desperation is on the rise...

Yeah, if you throw out every benchmark Phenoms do well in they look terrible!!

:rolleyes:

accord99

01-08-2009, 11:51 AM

Hang on, hang on a second. Before even debating your percentage figure, don't you agree that it is paradoxical to suggest that people buy a Q9400 or Core i7 to game at 19" resolution?
The same people though would probably be upgrading their video cards on a regular basis, therefore a test that actually shows the influence of the CPU is far more useful than one where every CPU scores roughly the same.

gOJDO

01-08-2009, 11:54 AM

I think we need to hold off until we see results using DDR3. That should give a more clear picture of where PII stands IMO.DDR3 can't change anything...but, the hope dies last.

Maxxximum

01-08-2009, 12:03 PM

Hmm. It's crazy. We are all here for the same reason i presume. Uor love for hardware and computers.Aren't we? then why does every thread end up this way?? I'm new here on this forum and i don't get it? I'ts all about "mine is bigger than yours". Sad.:shakes:

Well i thnk it's nice to see the phenom2 performing like it does.I'm looking forward to get a chip that clocks alittle better than the one i have rigth now.:yepp:

And all you guys with i7 and super clocked qxxxx. : Well i'm just as happy to see when you break a record, but there is god winners and bad winners, and not all in here are god winners, but i guess you know who you are :up:

largon

01-08-2009, 12:05 PM

Deneb is an upgrade by looking from a Q6600.
So I'm buying. And since I have no interest in LGA775 platform anymore after going through 4 mobos and 6 CPUs and i7 is not even an option...

..Deneb for me. I hope I'll get back the fun of OC'ing I lost when moving to Core 2.

Lestat

01-08-2009, 12:19 PM

We have posted a review of the AMD Phenom II 940 X4 sitting on an MSI DKA790GX Platinum for your viewing pleasure.

hitechlegion is proud to be an AMD lauch partner for the Phenom II!

http://hitechlegion.com/reviews/processors/123-p2940x4

pretty good stuff if i do say so myself.

Jacky

01-08-2009, 12:21 PM

I would also contest the justification based on your second point. I would much rather see how it performs at all resolutions, to get an idea of the performance scaling.

No, you don't. It's still the same code that will run on the CPU, so they will perform similar, just the gap will be smaller and you will be looking at GPU performance.

Hmm. It's crazy. We are all here for the same reason i presume. Uor love for hardware and computers.Aren't we? then why does every thread end up this way?? I'm new here on this forum and i don't get it? I'ts all about "mine is bigger than yours". Sad.:shakes:

What are you talking about? I haven't seen such civilised discussion in a long time. :D

[XC] gomeler

01-08-2009, 12:21 PM

Graphs are tiny and this belongs in the Phenom II review thread.

JoeBar

01-08-2009, 12:24 PM

I think we need to hold off until we see results using DDR3. That should give a more clear picture of where PII stands IMO.
U can't expect DDR3 to change the whole picture, can u...? ;)

Eastcoasthandle

01-08-2009, 12:33 PM

U can't expect DDR3 to change the whole picture, can u...? ;)
I would like to see both DDR2 and DDR3 results :D

largon

01-08-2009, 12:40 PM

I'm not expecting any gains from DDR3 as Hammer has never been bandwidth sensitive. And Deneb is not that big an improvement...

ryboto

01-08-2009, 12:48 PM

No, you don't. It's still the same code that will run on the CPU, so they will perform similar, just the gap will be smaller and you will be looking at GPU performance.

No I don't what? want all resolutions? I remember one review where the i7 systems framreate dropped after certain resolutions in a few games. I guess if I think about it, I wouldn't have been offended if they'd done it, because you're buying a platform if you go either camp, so wouldn't it be good to know how that platform performs in situations you'd actually use it(specifically games in this case)?

Lestat

01-08-2009, 12:49 PM

thanks for moving my thread,(whom ever did it) i was going to put it in here but i didnt know how cluttered and lost this thread was.

ryboto

01-08-2009, 12:51 PM

If we argue about the res...why even buy a Phenom 1/2 in the first place? The X2 would do fine...

And what about tomorrows games? Or games like supreme commander?

Seems desperation is on the rise...

Really though, you think people who buy a quad core based system are using 1280x1024? Sure the lower resolutions are good to examine CPU power, but the CPU is part of the platform, what's the harm in seeing how it pushes the games at full quality? We already knew it wasn't really competitive at lower resolutions based on the hwbox(right?) review.

roofsniper

01-08-2009, 12:57 PM

Let's not forget that the first review was made by the hwbox.gr! Their results were inline with the results we see from today's reviews. So some hardcore AMD fanboys who were bi*ching at the results are owing an apology to the greek gurus.

So to sum it up:
- Deneb is great only as an upgrade for those who have AM2/AM2+ platforms.
- It offers no advantage over what is available on the market for quite some time.

i think it would be hard to apologize. i even said myself that the benchmarks they had were correct and many others did as well. there were plenty of leaked benchmarks at the time that compared. others were arguing about other things including testing methods.

Donnie27

01-08-2009, 01:08 PM

Tough task.

For me, this visualizes what some have argued a lot here. It's about power consumption, and while PII may have better idling power consumption than Ci7, if you're a Ci7 owner, the graph below is why you love your system.

Tech Report:

That was a point I made a long time ago.

rk7p5

01-08-2009, 01:13 PM

P2's performance is exactly where i expected it to be, between q9450 and i7. Pet North did a comparo with q6600 and agena, the performance is nearly identical in real world apps. P2 is a great value for enthusiasts.

gallag

01-08-2009, 01:26 PM

P2's performance is exactly where i expected it to be, between q9450 and i7.

What review showed this? I thought they all showed about the same i.e ph920=q9300 and ph940=q9400

gOJDO

01-08-2009, 01:36 PM

What review showed this? I thought they all showed about the same i.e ph920=q9300 and ph940=q9400Some people are too emotional to accept the facts.
More precisely:
Q9300~=P2 920~=Q6700
Q9450~=P2 940~=QX6800

Eastcoasthandle

01-08-2009, 01:38 PM

DDR3 can't change anything...but, the hope dies last.

Hope isn't an issue here as it's never a good practice to assume. Now that we see what it does with DDR2 the picture would look more complete (for me at least) if DDR3 was used. Ideally, PII + DDR3 + 64-bit OS. :yepp:

Shintai

01-08-2009, 01:44 PM

Really though, you think people who buy a quad core based system are using 1280x1024? Sure the lower resolutions are good to examine CPU power, but the CPU is part of the platform, what's the harm in seeing how it pushes the games at full quality? We already knew it wasn't really competitive at lower resolutions based on the hwbox(right?) review.

You can always pick a weak enough GFX card. And/Or any old enough game or maybe current and then say x CPU is enough. Its simply a poor and lame excuse. Or perhaps its quite fitting. Since Phenom 2 offers performance that was avalible 2 years ago...

Here is a 280GTX instead of a 9800GTX or something...

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amdphenomii_010709132536/17984.png

v_rr

01-08-2009, 01:49 PM

You can always pick a weak enough GFX card. And/Or any old enough game or maybe current and then say x CPU is enough. Its simply a poor and lame excuse. Or perhaps its quite fitting. Since Phenom 2 offers performance that was avalible 2 years ago...

Here is a 280GTX instead of a 9800GTX or something...

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amdphenomii_010709132536/17984.png

You are such a fanboy:yepp:
Hand picking screens and pick the worse of them. Rest of screens with better scores:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amdphenomii_010709132536/17982.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amdphenomii_010709132536/17983.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/amdphenomii_010709132536/17985.png

Review with multiple resolutions per game:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/17
PhenomII 940 better then core I7 920 @ Games ^^

cegras

01-08-2009, 02:07 PM

If we argue about the res...why even buy a Phenom 1/2 in the first place? The X2 would do fine...

And what about tomorrows games? Or games like supreme commander?

Seems desperation is on the rise...

If it makes you happy, I'll include the phenom quad cores in that statement too. Arguing that people purchase quad cores to increase their 19" gaming experience is pretty inane.

Shintai

01-08-2009, 02:24 PM

You are such a fanboy:yepp:
Hand picking screens and pick the worse of them. Rest of screens with better scores:

I didnt pick the one with the worst performance for the PH2 to show its weak. But to show that even some games today easily bonus from a faster CPU.

You just proved that there is no reason to buy a Phenom in the other games. Since dualcores can do it just as well. Even low X2.

So why should people get a Phenom 2?

Are we buying it to play old games or future? It fails in both.

If it makes you happy, I'll include the phenom quad cores in that statement too. Arguing that people purchase quad cores to increase their 19" gaming experience is pretty inane.

Argueing that PC gaming performance is static in CPU usage is the insane part...

v_rr

01-08-2009, 02:27 PM

Shintai

01-08-2009, 02:42 PM

So why so much troling arround the tread... this is a tread about PhenomII, not: AMD is the next via, AMD onlyt have ph2 3.0Ghz until 2011 and Intel will have 3 new turbo arquitectures and X2 CPU are the best to play games.

I cant help you dont like the reviews and facts around. Im sorry the Phenom 2 failed to live up to the hype..again. I dont know why you and a few others love to exaggerate so much.

Also look in the mirror before calling someone anything...you seem mad and dissapointed and need an escapegoat? :shakes:

And your above statement aint correct. Plus AMD shows 3Ghz for 2009...so any speedgrade above would most likely be in 2010. I even stated the AM3 chips got a NB bump to 2Ghz.

Phenom 2 is a nice upgrade. Tho I would wait to 925 and 945. However its simply not worth it if you are getting a new system.

cegras

01-08-2009, 02:48 PM

Argueing that PC gaming performance is static in CPU usage is the insane part...

I never said that. What I was originally implying was that if you have the money to upgrade to a quad core, buy a bigger monitor. Since nothing but the X2 (currently our 'worst' CPU) will drag you below playable framerates. Besides, they tested those games with GTX280 or whatever. Where's my 9600GT tests with CPU swapping at lower resolution?

T_Flight

01-08-2009, 02:53 PM

Shintai, coming into these threads on here is really pointless. The reviews and the benchmarks don't matter right now. It's a perception that's not gonnna change. The benchmarks only matter when they show the results they desire. Right now that ain't the case, so they don't matter.

Miss Banana

01-08-2009, 02:54 PM

Shintai, the links to all reviews are right in this thread.
If you really enjoy showing people graphs that make the Phenom look bad, why don't you make your own "Shintai's handpicked Phenom benchmarks" thread?

Also, looking at the cost of a PII system (MB with a 790X chipset for example) compared to the cost of a comparable intel system makes it obvious why so many reviews have positive conclusions about PII.

And I must be daft, but who exactly should apologise for PII not taking the performance crown? Hoping is not a crime on XS right?

AMD is making intel drop prices again. This alone makes PII competitive and a huge succes, the way I see it.

And T Flight, seriously grow up. Do you actually have some content or opinion to share, or was your intention solely to flamebate?

Shintai

01-08-2009, 02:56 PM

AMD is making intel drop prices again. This alone makes PII competitive and a huge succes, the way I see it.

Could you link to those pricecuts that AMD is making Intel do?

suddeath

01-08-2009, 02:57 PM

I haven't seen any extreme oc in those reviews yet. Here's one on cascade from www.purepc.pl (http://www.purepc.pl/procesory/AMD_Dragon_oraz_Phenom_II):

T_Flight

01-08-2009, 02:59 PM

Miss Banana

01-08-2009, 03:04 PM

Could you link to those pricecuts that AMD is making Intel do?

I heard about them in one of the Phenom II reviews, don't recall what one.
Hmm, this must be horrible for you, to find my source, you have to actually read Phenom II reviews...

And T Flight, on this forum, when you post something, everyone can see it, not just the person you are talking to.
Messages like yours, could also be send by use of private messages, if they weren't ment as a flamebait that is...

roofsniper

01-08-2009, 03:07 PM

I didnt pick the one with the worst performance for the PH2 to show its weak. But to show that even some games today easily bonus from a faster CPU.

You just proved that there is no reason to buy a Phenom in the other games. Since dualcores can do it just as well. Even low X2.

So why should people get a Phenom 2?

Are we buying it to play old games or future? It fails in both.

Argueing that PC gaming performance is static in CPU usage is the insane part...
atm if all you do is game and you care about nothing else like multitasking, startup speeds or any other type of application then go ahead and get a dual core. it will be fine. but considering that ati and nvidia have been optimizing their drivers lately for quad cores we might see that it would be pointless to get a dual core.

Shintai, coming into these threads on here is really pointless. The reviews and the benchmarks don't matter right now. It's a perception that's not gonnna change. The benchmarks only matter when they show the results they desire. Right now that ain't the case, so they don't matter.

really? cause my perception has changed a lot in the past months. i have gone from being a hardcore amd fanboy to recognizing that intel can be better in the majority of tests. i understand that for the average user looking to buy a cpu that at this point they would most likely get an intel system. hopefully the athlon x4s can offer a low price without minimal performance loss and that will change things. but my views have changed. some people like you on the other hand have not changed at all and refuse to believe anything but intel is the best and anyone who has any reason for buying an amd system is either a fanboy or doesn't know what they are talking about. give it a rest i don't think any intel fanboy is going to change my decision. its just hardware that most of us buy just to have fun tweaking around with. why bother going out and telling everyone else that their cpu sucks when no one really cares? :shrug:

Clairvoyant129

01-08-2009, 03:07 PM

Results are a bit disappointing... looks like the early previews were right, clock for clock about the same level of IPC (or even slower) as Kentsfield. Looks like I rather just pick up a Q9650 or i7 920. Even an E8200 is just as fast as PII 920 in games.

You are such a fanboy:yepp:
Hand picking screens and pick the worse of them. Rest of screens with better scores:

Review with multiple resolutions per game:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/17
PhenomII 940 better then core I7 920 @ Games ^^

You're talking about hand picking but you're doing the same thing with FEAR. Not to mention FEAR is like 5 years old, it's a bad benchmark.

Shintai

01-08-2009, 03:08 PM

I heard about them in one of the Phenom II reviews, don't recall what one.
Hmm, this must be horrible for you, to find my source, you have to actually read Phenom II reviews...

And T Flight, on this forum, when you post something, everyone can see it, not just the person you are talking to.
Messages like yours, could also be send by use of private messages, if they weren't ment as a flamebait that is...

So you are flamebaiting now? :p: (But its abit wierd when thinking on Phenoms 2 lack of performance. Would it be horrible for you or me...or whatever? Assuming we had a predefined wish? :confused: )

I guess there was no pricecuts.

Zakiruz

01-08-2009, 03:12 PM

So you are flamebaiting now? :p:

I guess there was no pricecuts.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=20

Anand mentioned rumored intel pricecuts somewhere along the review and reiterated it at the end.

EDIT: I've found it, it's metioned here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=4

Miss Banana

01-08-2009, 03:14 PM

So you are flamebaiting now? :p: (But its abit wierd when thinking on Phenoms 2 lack of performance. Would it be horrible for you or me...or whatever? Assuming we had a predefined wish? :confused: )

I guess there was no pricecuts.

I am not flamebating, I really do believe you have not actually read a reviews conclusion. If you would have you would know what pricecuts I am talking about.

I just found my source, the pricecuts are not yet confirmed, but the rumors come from several sources. And TBH intel HAS to pricecut the 9400 the way I see it.

Nedjo

01-08-2009, 03:15 PM

Here is a 280GTX instead of a 9800GTX or something...

Here is GTX 260 Core 216:

http://www.legitreviews.com/images/reviews/860/Far_Cry_2.jpghttp://www.legitreviews.com/images/reviews/860/Call_of_Duty_4.jpg
http://www.legitreviews.com/images/reviews/860/Crysis_Warhead.jpghttp://www.legitreviews.com/images/reviews/860/Fallout_3.jpg
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/860/4/
:rolleyes:

Shintai

01-08-2009, 03:17 PM

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=20

Anand mentioned rumored intel pricecuts somewhere along the review and reiterated it at the end.

EDIT: I've found it, it's metioned here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=4

Thats nothing new and not really due to Phenom 2. Its the regular pricecut by Intel. You can see most of the changes here. i7 920 is the "competitor". Not Phenom 2.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=208007

demonkevy666

01-08-2009, 03:29 PM

Here is GTX 260 Core 216:
:rolleyes:

Preliminary Overclocking

I really was more displeased with myself than the actual processor in overclocking Phenom II. Even after spending hours playing with the processor, I found it very hard to break the 250HTT barrier. Afterward, I realized I was running the memory controller at 2.54GHz with "low" IMC volts which may have been a frequency bottleneck.

Sadly, I cannot comment on the temperatures I was hitting or what it takes to hit 4GHz, yet. Once this article is published, then I'll be a bit more liberal with voltages and really start bashing down clock barriers. I have plans on testing with air heatsinks, dry ice, a cascade, and liquid nitrogen, all the tools in an avid overclocker's arsenal.

seem people skip over this NB/IMC speed.

Wrap Up and Conclusion

For the enthusiast and amateur overclocker, Phenom II is almost a gift in a black box. With the Black Edition Phenom II X4 940 running ~$300 with shipping, you are getting a very flexible processor that just craves to be tweaked and overclocked. It may have trouble standing up against Core i7 in sheer CPU benchmarks like Cinebench and wPrime, but for 3D applications you just might see a few surprises from Phenom II.

phenom II doing good at 1920 x1200...?

Nedjo

01-08-2009, 03:44 PM

Some people think that GTA IV is the most CPU intensive game out there right now.... let's see how Phenom II stakc up against Core 2 Quad in this game:

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/2772/gta42qs9.png (http://imageshack.us)
http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/gta42qs9.png/1/w700.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img114/gta42qs9.png/1/)

Caveman787

01-08-2009, 03:50 PM

Actuallly in fair high resolution benches i7 and phenom II did well.

Some reviews show it as abysmal in some games and at high resolutions which doesnt make sense.

Also a big issue would be having a working board with new bios for the processor I think...I see no reason why phenom II would lag behind other alot in high resolution most I've seen it's doing better than core 2 probably because of the imc.

Hornet331

01-08-2009, 03:51 PM

Some people think that GTA IV is the most CPU intensive game out there right now.... let's see how Phenom II stakc up against Core 2 Quad in this game:

http://pcgameshardware.de/screenshots/original/2009/01/gta4-2.PNG

more like the WCGE (worse coded game ever), imho GTA4 isn't representative for anything. :)

Even on a 3ghz quad it runs like :banana::banana::banana::banana:.. barely in the playable fps range and looks like crap compared to other games...

Good games that show scaling in with quads -> Supreme Comander, UT3, Farcry 2. :yepp:

roofsniper

01-08-2009, 03:55 PM

more like the WCGE (worse coded game ever), imho GTA4 isn't representative for anything. :)

Good games that show scaling in with quads -> Supreme Comander, UT3, Farcry 2. :yepp:

nice to see that you say something is coded well because amd does pretty well at it and then you say to pick games that always work best on intel. :shakes:

the gta4 benchmarks prove my point. that at lower resolutions intel does better but at higher resolutions amd seems to do better. yesterday everyone was saying that 1204x768 is the best resolution to bench on because it shows cpu performance..........

Hornet331

01-08-2009, 03:58 PM

nice to see that you say something is coded well because amd does pretty well at it and then you say to pick games that always work best on intel. :shakes:

the gta4 benchmarks prove my point. that at lower resolutions intel does better but at higher resolutions amd seems to do better. yesterday everyone was saying that 1204x768 is the best resolution to bench on because it shows cpu performance..........

Well according to this graph.. a P2 920 is on par with a Q9550... and both arn't exactly in playable fps ranges. :rolleyes:

I call it :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty coded, cause if compared to crysis it looks like crap and runs even worse then crysis. :rofl:

Shintai

01-08-2009, 03:59 PM

nice to see that you say something is coded well because amd does pretty well at it and then you say to pick games that always work best on intel. :shakes:

the gta4 benchmarks prove my point. that at lower resolutions intel does better but at higher resolutions amd seems to do better. yesterday everyone was saying that 1204x768 is the best resolution to bench on because it shows cpu performance..........

Look where the Phenom 1 is in GTA4...

pcgh.de looks to be abit odd graphs..
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,672112/Test/Benchmark/Phenom_II_X4_CPU-Test-_AMD_Deneb_gegen_Intel_Core_2/Core_i7/?page=5

It honestly look bugged.

roofsniper

01-08-2009, 04:03 PM

what about it? phenom I is the worst of the quads and it seems that gta4 favors quads over dual cores. i don't think memory bandwidth has anything to do with this. cause if so wouldn't the x2 be better than the c2d?

Nedjo

01-08-2009, 04:04 PM

phenom II doing good at 1920 x1200...?

see 4 yourself:
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=802&p=0
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3802/crysiswarheadgn9.pnghttp://img296.imageshack.us/img296/5856/fc2lx0.png
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/3103/gta4kx6.pnghttp://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9317/ut3mc0.png

accord99

01-08-2009, 04:04 PM

the gta4 benchmarks prove my point. that at lower resolutions intel does better but at higher resolutions amd seems to do better. yesterday everyone was saying that 1204x768 is the best resolution to bench on because it shows cpu performance..........
How about Left 4 Dead then?

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,672112/Test/Benchmark/Phenom_II_X4_CPU-Test-_AMD_Deneb_gegen_Intel_Core_2/Core_i7/?page=4

roofsniper

01-08-2009, 04:11 PM

How about Left 4 Dead then?

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,672112/Test/Benchmark/Phenom_II_X4_CPU-Test-_AMD_Deneb_gegen_Intel_Core_2/Core_i7/?page=4

what about left for dead? obviously it doesn't work well with the phenom II. consdering that overclocking it reduces performance by a pretty big amount. :rolleyes:

edit: http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenomii940/15.htm looking at other reviews for left 4 dead its the same story again. phenom II's performance compared to intel increases at higher resolutions.

advantage of phenom II over phenom I in 1024x768: 6.67%, in 1280x1024: 8% in 1680x1050: 3.28%, in 1920x1200: 5.88%. if the lowest resolutions showed absolute cpu performance you would think that as the resolution went up the performance of phenom II over phenom I would decrease over time which it does not.

accord99

01-08-2009, 04:16 PM

what about left for dead? obviously it doesn't work well with the phenom II. consdering that overclocking it reduces performance by a pretty big amount. :rolleyes:
It means that trying to say anything about CPU performance when something is clearly GPU limited doesn't prove much of anything.

PetNorth

01-08-2009, 04:32 PM

Some people are too emotional to accept the facts.
More precisely:
Q9300~=P2 920~=Q6700
Q9450~=P2 940~=QX6800

I tend to disagree. As rk7p5 said, this Christmas I tested my systems, Kentsfield and Agena, clock for clock (all real world apps), and based on them, I would say that PhII 940 is between 9550 and 9650, and PhII 920 between 9450 and 9550. I´ll include Deneb and Yorkfield as soon as possible, aren't in house yet ;-) http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=213642

AbelJemka

01-08-2009, 04:38 PM

I read like every review on the net and i was pretty astonished by the big discuptancy in results :shakes:
You can find review PhII 2 above Q9550 in a place and far behind in another same bench same settings :eek:
That's pretty incredible and for either some receive big bucks to praise PhII or some don't knoww how to correctly setup an AMD system after 3 years of Intel Core domination:rolleyes:

Hornet331

01-08-2009, 04:55 PM

That's pretty incredible and for either some receive big bucks to praise PhII or some don't knoww how to correctly setup an AMD system after 3 years of Intel Core domination:rolleyes:

I just love this tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. :ROTF:

As if its so hard to put a cpu/ram/gfx card into a mobo and install a os.

Oc benching is another story but you can't do much wrong with out of the box (aka stock) stuff...

edit:

omfg i just read the HardOCP review...

WTF !!!111 :eek:

The Phenom II performance speaks for itself. It loses to its old nemesis, the Core 2, which I think some folks will be surprised by. The Phenom II loses to the Core i7, which I think was to be expected. The Phenom II is a loser.

Does that mean it is without value? Absolutely not. But I think those that will find value in it will be few and far between and even fewer of those folks will be computer hardware enthusiasts.

If you are a gamer or a content creation professional, my suggestion to you is to save your pennies and get the Intel Core i7. Even if you have to wait an extra few months to save up for good DDR3. The Phenom II just does not have long legs, and I don’t think I will want to pay for DDR3 to dress one up next month either.

Did Hell just froze over and im seeing this correct that Kyle Bennett calls P2 a looser. :eek:

Spectrobozo

01-08-2009, 04:56 PM

yes this is very strange, a lot of different results... far cry 2 is one good example.

v_rr

01-08-2009, 04:56 PM

You're talking about hand picking but you're doing the same thing with FEAR. Not to mention FEAR is like 5 years old, it's a bad benchmark.

Easy, when i point the review I was talking about all games in that review, not only fear. Check-out the other games ;)

The AMD roadmap is allways changing. 15 days ago and AMD made changes. And as far as I know not to be on roadmap don´t say nothing.
As far as i know AMD still have de Phenom "Stars"/FX to come and will have 6-core opteron also in midle of this year (H2), not final 2009 like shintay said. It´s H2 for the 6-core:

We've seen an updated server roadmap where AMD places its six-core Istanbul processor for the second half of 2009. At first, AMD internally said that there will be some samples in late 2008, but 2H 2009 is the time of volume production.

The new six-core CPU will have 6MB L3 cache and DDR2 support, powered by HT-3 and AMD Virtualization support. Of course, this CPU will be developed in 45nm and it looks just like Shanghai 45nm CPU but with two additional cores.
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7224&Itemid=1

So AMD can do somethings to counter i5 by Q3. One 3.2-3.4Ghz CPU? Possible...
A 6-core CPU? Also possible...
Everything is open.

Chad Boga

01-08-2009, 05:04 PM

So AMD can do somethings to counter i5 by Q3. One 3.2-3.4Ghz CPU? Possible...
A 6-core CPU? Also possible...
Everything is open.And in Q4 32nm Westmere is due.

rk7p5

01-08-2009, 05:07 PM

Hornet331

01-08-2009, 05:19 PM

Ben Brown also did an awesome comparison between agena and deneb. Ipc wise deneb is 10% to 15% faster then agena, putting it between yorkfield and i7. Bang for the buck, you can't beat amd atm.:up:

http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/434005-phenom-i-phenom-ii-review-comparison.html :yepp:

that strongly depends on the apps, in rendering deneb is ~5% faster but is some games its sometimes up to 20% faster, sometimes its not faster at all.

But calling it 10-15% faster on avarage ipc wise is a bit off an overstatement.

AbelJemka

01-08-2009, 05:20 PM

I just love this tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. :ROTF:

I don't understand why you try to bash me on this :(
I speak sincerely.
Just compare results all over the net and you'll see the mess.

Hornet331

01-08-2009, 05:34 PM

Cause all this company A pays site B to rate product C better is BS, it may happen in one or two cases, but saying that half sites get payed and the other half is to stupid to set up a computer right is ridiculous.

AbelJemka

01-08-2009, 06:15 PM

You know sarcasm?
I use smilie like this ;)
You can find yourselve a reason for mess up in result because it's abvious there is mess up.
With ATI and Nvidia even it's numbers are a little ainaccurate you know one win this benchmark etc...
Here with see a clear win, a clear tie or a clear lose for the same benchmark with same settings and with the same system spec. Thats nearly impossible!
That's why those threads are like this, flamewars threads coz by picking the "right" you can show the truth to everyone.

roofsniper

01-08-2009, 07:11 PM

And in Q4 32nm Westmere is due.

if you are buying a laptop then yes it might be. westmere for laptops is set for late 2009 to january 2010 while the desktop versions are set for first half of 2010 for the high end and last half for the mainstream and low end. the high ends won't be competing with deneb and will actually just be competing with nehalem. plus bulldozer is set for 2011 which will include 12 cores and will be the core used for fusion so we could be seeing graphics in the cpus by then. so even though you are saying how westmere is going to destroy amd look at the big picture, bulldozer might come right after westmere and with bulldozer supporting 50% more cores than westmere and possibilities of integrated graphics.

Chad Boga

01-08-2009, 08:11 PM

if you are buying a laptop then yes it might be. westmere for laptops is set for late 2009 to january 2010 while the desktop versions are set for first half of 2010 for the high end and last half for the mainstream and low end.
I suspect that the first 6 core Westmere will be server oriented, as will the first iteration of any 6 core from AMD.

plus bulldozer is set for 2011 which will include 12 cores and will be the core used for fusion so we could be seeing graphics in the cpus by then
I very much doubt the first offerings of Bulldozer will be 12 core, certainly not on the desktop and why should it be?

For the desktop user for the next 2 to 3 years at least, 4 cores with higher IPC and clockspeed will be much more compelling than 6 or more cores that are clockspeed limited by power draw.

so even though you are saying how westmere is going to destroy amd look at the big picture, bulldozer might come right after westmere and with bulldozer supporting 50% more cores than westmere and possibilities of integrated graphics.
Sandy Bridge will probably arrive much closer to Bulldozer's introduction than Bulldozer will arrive to Westmere's introduction.

AMD's biggest problem is clearly the 12 months of 2010.

I suspect we will see Westmere/Nehalem Quads in Q1 10 on 32nm for the desktop and it will take AMD at least 12 months to respond adequately to this, and that will mean they will be at a greater competitive disadvantage to Intel than the first 12 months of Conroe's introduction.

Do you think AMD will be able to survive going through that again?

I do not.

So AMD needs for Intel to stumble somewhere along the way, either they are 6 months late with 32nm or Westmere, because we know that Bulldozer is surely their last hope to get back on a truly competitive keel with Intel and if Bulldozer has any stumbles, well . . . . . . .

MsB

01-08-2009, 08:15 PM

LOL@ HardOCP - Bought and paid for like some posters in this forum :up:

Donnie27

01-08-2009, 08:23 PM

I just love this tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. :ROTF:

As if its so hard to put a cpu/ram/gfx card into a mobo and install a os.

Oc benching is another story but you can't do much wrong with out of the box (aka stock) stuff...

edit:

omfg i just read the HardOCP review...

WTF !!!111 :eek:

Did Hell just froze over and im seeing this correct that Kyle Bennett calls P2 a looser. :eek:

:rofl: Was Kyle drinking or did AMD cut him off:rofl:

This how threads go when the usual folks can't get threads Censored (i.e. only Pro-AMD Cheerleading allowed) LOL! Games mean nothing since even a stock an E8400 is good enough for that.

Chad Boga

01-08-2009, 08:25 PM

bulldozer might come right after westmere
I forgot to pick up this point, but for the desktop, I would be amazed if Bulldozer appears on the desktop within 9 months of Westmere and consider 12 or more months the far more likely prospect.

and with bulldozer supporting 50% more cores than westmere and possibilities of integrated graphics.
I am currently quite sceptical that Intel can make Larrabee work to the extent that they become a contender in the high end graphics market, but if they do manage to pull this off, Nvidia will surely have to merge with AMD.

How much this might help AMD, it is hard to say at this point.

v_rr

01-08-2009, 08:27 PM

ASUS Preparing Eight New AMD Motherboards Under the M4A, M4N Series

ASUS is reportedly preparing eight new motherboards based on the AM3/AM2+ sockets, ready for AMD's 45nm desktop CPUs. While two of these have already caught the media's attention, there are more. Tabled below are the eight motherboards based on the AMD 7-series chipsets, the ASUS M4A series, and NVIDIA nForce 700 series (and 900 series chipsets, if the "980a SLI" reference in the table isn't a typo), the ASUS M4N series.

Getting into some details, the M4A79-T is the high-end AMD CrossFireX supportive platform based on the AMD 790FX + SB750 chipset, that supports dual-channel DDR3-1600 (OC) memory. It will feature four PCI-Express x16 slots. The M4A79 Deluxe supports DDR2 memory. It is known that the upcoming AM3 socket Phenom II processors will be backwards compatible with AM2+ (DDR2) platforms. The M4A78T-E is the based on the AMD 790GX + SB750 chipset, it supports DDR3. The M4A78-E supports DDR2, while being based on the same chipset. The M4N series motherboards, start from the 3-way SLI supportive M4N82 Deluxe based on the 780a/980a SLI chipset, again it isn't known if the chart sourced has a typo. There is the M4N72-E based on the nForce 750a SLI, and finally the M4N78 Pro. All the M4N motherboards support DDR2 memory.

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/09-01-08/108a.jpg

http://www.techpowerup.com/81303/ASUS_Preparing_Eight_New_AMD_Motherboards_Under_th e_M4A_M4N_Series.html

savantu

01-08-2009, 09:46 PM

Hang on, hang on a second. Before even debating your percentage figure, don't you agree that it is paradoxical to suggest that people buy a Q9400 or Core i7 to game at 19" resolution?
...

Not at all.90% of QC buyers don't have a clue of what they're having. You and this forum isn't representative of real world users .How hard is it to accept that ?

Back in 2007 this were the most common used resolutions :

1. 1024 x 768 55.34%
2. 1280 x 1024 17.23%
3. 1280 x 800 8.23%
4. 800 x 600 8.18%
5. 1152 x 864 3.67%

Maybe in 2010 , half of the users will be 1280/1024.So that resolution is very relevant.

http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox51_screen_resolutions_internet.htm l

According to Valve HW statistics in November 2008 :

Primary Display Resolution
1280 x 1024 24.83%
800 x 600 (-0.07%) 0.98%
1024 x 768 (-1.02%) 24.40%
1152 x 864 (-0.07%) 4.06%
1280 x 768 (0.00%) 0.88%
1280 x 800 (+0.08%) 8.33%
1280 x 960 (+0.02%) 2.19%
1280 x 1024 (-0.42%) 24.83%
1440 x 900 (+0.51%) 10.38%
1600 x 1200 (-0.08%) 1.18%
1680 x 1050 (+0.65%) 14.91%
1920 x 1200 (+0.17%) 3.74%
Other (+0.88%) 4.14%

Under or equal 1280 represent 65% of the market ( assuming other is over 1280 ). Testing at uber high resolutions is pointless from a CPU perspective .People might have Core I7 and SLI and game at 1280.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

roofsniper

01-08-2009, 10:05 PM

anyone using 1024x768 resolution most likely doesn't know what a core is or is concerned with it.

Zucker2k

01-08-2009, 10:11 PM

anyone using 1024x768 resolution most likely doesn't know what a core is or is concerned with it.You got owned, and instead of showing some data to back up your argument you instead start bashing users with 1024x768 resolution? :down: Talk is cheap, start showing some hard facts.

roofsniper

01-08-2009, 10:15 PM

zucker it would be nice if you could stop bashing me without any reason. you want to see some facts? who here runs 1024x768? hmmmm? and if you do what cpu and video card do you have?

BrowncoatGR

01-08-2009, 10:35 PM

Not at all.90% of QC buyers don't have a clue of what they're having. You and this forum isn't representative of real world users .How hard is it to accept that ?

Back in 2007 this were the most common used resolutions :

1. 1024 x 768 55.34%
2. 1280 x 1024 17.23%
3. 1280 x 800 8.23%
4. 800 x 600 8.18%
5. 1152 x 864 3.67%

Maybe in 2010 , half of the users will be 1280/1024.So that resolution is very relevant.

http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox51_screen_resolutions_internet.htm l

According to Valve HW statistics in November 2008 :

Primary Display Resolution
1280 x 1024 24.83%
800 x 600 (-0.07%) 0.98%
1024 x 768 (-1.02%) 24.40%
1152 x 864 (-0.07%) 4.06%
1280 x 768 (0.00%) 0.88%
1280 x 800 (+0.08%) 8.33%
1280 x 960 (+0.02%) 2.19%
1280 x 1024 (-0.42%) 24.83%
1440 x 900 (+0.51%) 10.38%
1600 x 1200 (-0.08%) 1.18%
1680 x 1050 (+0.65%) 14.91%
1920 x 1200 (+0.17%) 3.74%
Other (+0.88%) 4.14%

Under or equal 1280 represent 65% of the market ( assuming other is over 1280 ). Testing at uber high resolutions is pointless from a CPU perspective .People might have Core I7 and SLI and game at 1280.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

And only 11% of Steam users have a QC
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/
You really think most of those are in the 65% having a low res monitor?

Zucker2k

01-08-2009, 10:36 PM

zucker it would be nice if you could stop bashing me without any reason. you want to see some facts? who here runs 1024x768? hmmmm? and if you do what cpu and video card do you have?See that's your problem, perpetually assuming things and conjuring more assumptions to support your assumptions.

Savantu went to lengths to give you info from Steam, the premier games vending medium and their statistics of users (people who actually play games) resolution. Why did he do that? To backup his argument that the majority of users are still on lower resolutions. If objectivity meant anything to you, you'd accept the fact or show other evidence to back your claims of 1680x1050 as the standard benchmark for gaming. But this is beyond your scope of comprehension so I'll leave it at that.

And only 11% of Steam users have a QC
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/
You really think most of those are in the 65% having a low res monitor?Dualcores have always been favored over quadcores for gaming; at least on the Intel platform this is the case. Duals overclock easily to 4Ghz+ and therefore give more frame-rates in games; as is evident in some of the tests. An E8600 at 4.5Ghz would annihilate most quads in an overwhelming majority of games simply because only a select number of games actually take advantage of 4 cores so frequency is more important in most game-play.

eleeter

01-08-2009, 11:11 PM

Savantu went to lengths to give you info from Steam, the premier games vending medium and their statistics of users (people who actually play games) resolution. Why did he do that? To backup his argument that the majority of users are still on lower resolutions
Who cares? Why would you buy a quad core and then run @1280x1024 anyway?

Besides, the average STEAM user has a pretty pathetic system.

mongoled

01-08-2009, 11:32 PM

-- Off topic --

It would be very easy for me to say that some 'members' posting on these forums are just plain stupid. But that would be too easy.

Why do I say this, well....

Its quite clear to the informed person that Phenom II is exactly where AMD wants it. The gains they have made through tweaking this architecture with limited resources whose basis started with K8 is commendable.

However some peeps seem intent on only posting negative comments regarding what AMD are trying to achieve. Now......

The conclusion I have come to, is that the majority of the peeps who fall into the negative category are composed of the following groups.

1/ Way too big egos
2/ Way too attached to a hardware company
3/ Have too much Intel stock

Please, can you guys at least stop being so negative in this thread? As other members have pointed out, if you want to be negative about the Phenom II then start your own thread title, 'Phenom II, my negative thoughts' and you can all talk you want in those threads about how 'bad' the Phenom II is.

Im ruling out that they are stupid.

Peeps who want to constructively discuss your points can join your thread, leaving the rest of us who want to read about the 'good' things bypass all your negativity.

At the end of they day, more choices are better for all of us.....

Now back on topic.....

A few reviews showed exactly what the majority of normal users would want from a quad core processor, that is, to be able to use their PC's with a multitude of tasks and not have any slow downs.

The results are quite clear, that K10 based processors are very good at this! This was the main reason I picked the 9950 in my sig over the Q6600. The performance you get in multitasking for the price you pay is excellent

:up:

It would be appreciated that people participated positivly in this thread, rather then just spewing their negative thoughts all over it

accord99

01-08-2009, 11:43 PM

Who cares? Why would you buy a quad core and then run @1280x1024 anyway?
Because they're interested in which CPU will have more grunt to run the shiny new GPU they buy next year?

gOJDO

01-09-2009, 12:11 AM

I tend to disagree. As rk7p5 said, this Christmas I tested my systems, Kentsfield and Agena, clock for clock (all real world apps)Gaming benchmarks are missing in your comparisons, and there Kentsfield wipes the floor with Agena.

, and based on them, I would say that PhII 940 is between 9550 and 9650, and PhII 920 between 9450 and 9550. Well none of the reviews came to your conclusion, so I prefer to believe in what all the reputable sites concluded rather than listening to what you think.
Also FSB 1333 offers 2-3% better performance than FSB 1066, DDR3 offers 2-3% better performance than DDR2 and Yorkfield is 5-6% faster than Kentsfield (FSB1333), clock for clock in average. So your conclusions about Yorkfield, based on Q6600 vs Agena comparisons excluding gaming are unsupported.

As for i7, Deneb can only compete in gaming. In everything else, i7 bruttally outperforms it.

Piotrsama

01-09-2009, 12:17 AM

Its quite clear to the informed person that Phenom II is exactly where AMD wants it. The gains they have made through tweaking this architecture with limited resources whose basis started with K8 is commendable.

However some peeps seem intent on only posting negative comments regarding what AMD are trying to achieve. Now......

The conclusion I have come to, is that the majority of the peeps who fall into the negative category are composed of the following groups.

1/ Way too big egos
2/ Way too attached to a hardware company
3/ Have too much Intel stock

Well said. :clap:

Jochenp

01-09-2009, 12:35 AM

You don't understand! The PII is waaaay smoother than the i7! ;);)

Leeghoofd

01-09-2009, 12:59 AM

Who cares? Why would you buy a quad core and then run @1280x1024 anyway?

Besides, the average STEAM user has a pretty pathetic system.

There are more purposes for a CPU then just gaming, I do rendering and folding so the more cores the merrier... and I still buy the fastest GPU around not for the games but for the benches.

And I still game at 1280 x 1024 only because I'm limited by my monitor.... It's not that everyone has a 22 inch these days. To all the ones that comment the gaming resolution ; visit a lanparty someday and be shocked how many users even have a CRT (15-19") these days... not every gamer is a 30 year old with a 2000 dollar salary... and not many CPU's are overclocked as most users buy prebuild rigs and are into gaming not hardware

largon

01-09-2009, 01:42 AM

PetNorth

01-09-2009, 01:49 AM

Gaming benchmarks are missing in your comparisons, and there Kentsfield wipes the floor with Agena.

well first of all, my graphic cards aren't capable :P Second, I tend to discard games benchmarks because to me are useless in general terms, cause in real world, CPU is a secondary actor.

Well none of the reviews came to your conclusion, so I prefer to believe in what all the reputable sites concluded rather than listening to what you think.

It's not what I think, it's the result of my set of benchmarks. Also, do you think those "reputable sites" test a more complete, detailed, and explained set of benchmarks with real world apps, than mine?

Also FSB 1333 offers 2-3% better performance than FSB 1066, DDR3 offers 2-3% better performance than DDR2 and Yorkfield is 5-6% faster than Kentsfield (FSB1333), clock for clock in average. So your conclusions about Yorkfield, based on Q6600 vs Agena comparisons excluding gaming are unsupported.

You talk about Yorkfield improvements. Deneb isn't improved at all, it seems ;)

Anyways, when I own both I''ll know myself. Nothing out there is better than personal experience ;)

Shintai

01-09-2009, 01:56 AM

if you are buying a laptop then yes it might be. westmere for laptops is set for late 2009 to january 2010 while the desktop versions are set for first half of 2010 for the high end and last half for the mainstream and low end. the high ends won't be competing with deneb and will actually just be competing with nehalem. plus bulldozer is set for 2011 which will include 12 cores and will be the core used for fusion so we could be seeing graphics in the cpus by then. so even though you are saying how westmere is going to destroy amd look at the big picture, bulldozer might come right after westmere and with bulldozer supporting 50% more cores than westmere and possibilities of integrated graphics.

What 12 core bulldozer are you talking about. There is a K10 based 12 core that gonna cost something around 2-4000$. Desktop "bulldozer only stands as 4cores with GPU and 4+ cores without.

Easy, when i point the review I was talking about all games in that review, not only fear. Check-out the other games ;)

The AMD roadmap is allways changing. 15 days ago and AMD made changes. And as far as I know not to be on roadmap don´t say nothing.
As far as i know AMD still have de Phenom "Stars"/FX to come and will have 6-core opteron also in midle of this year (H2), not final 2009 like shintay said. It´s H2 for the 6-core:

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7224&Itemid=1

So AMD can do somethings to counter i5 by Q3. One 3.2-3.4Ghz CPU? Possible...
A 6-core CPU? Also possible...
Everything is open.

The 6 core is server only. Plus there aint any desktop above 3Ghz on their roadmap for a good reason. The 6 cores die would be too big for any practical mainstream market. And yes, it is late 2009. Not middle.

Zucker2k

01-09-2009, 01:58 AM

I completely fail to see the point in low res/LOD/filtering gaming benchmarks.
I guess someone wants to believe the age-old prophecy of the elusive "future CPU intensive games". Today we're playing yesterdays "future games" and so far those proverbial CPU intensive titles are nowhere to be seen. When we look at the game benches done on realworld settings we see CPU has little bearing on the results. Once CPU becomes a bottleneck FPS is already so high nobody gives a turd about what the FPS actually is as it's through the roof.
What is that 40% FPS advantage worth when frame rates float around 100FPS?
How does steam stats prove he's wrong?
Right, they don't. For all we know, most of those sub-SXGA users could be running those single cores that still cover one third of the surveyed systems. And you know what? That's the most likely scenario. No assumptions needed to deduct that. So it's more plausible 90% of QC users don't know what they have but it's entirely plausible people with 10 year old monitors are educated "power users"?
:shrug:It is more likely that gamers, especially the kind that actually create an account on steam and buy games, know a little bit more about their hardware and capabilities than the average computer buyer who'll buy whatever latest rig Dell and HP are pushing into the market. Why? Because the gamer who wants to play the latest and greatest game is going to learn quickly either through experience or from a gaming forum what sort of hardware is required to play which kind of game. No?

accord99

01-09-2009, 02:08 AM

AbelJemka

01-09-2009, 02:51 AM

It is more likely that gamers, especially the kind that actually create an account on steam and buy games, know a little bit more about their hardware and capabilities than the average computer buyer who'll buy whatever latest rig Dell and HP are pushing into the market. Why? Because the gamer who wants to play the latest and greatest game is going to learn quickly either through experience or from a gaming forum what sort of hardware is required to play which kind of game. No?
No! How creating an account on Steam and buy games is a skill :ROTF:
It's like install Itunes and buy songs for Ipod, everyone can do that!
Steam Hardware Survey is far from represent gamers hardware. 10% of Steam play solely CS since more than 5 years!

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/14156 (http://techreport.com/discussions.x/14156)
Techreport hardware survey from december show a far better picture of review readers hardware.

Main display resolution

* 1024 x 768 (364 votes)
7%
* 1280 x 800 (93 votes)
2%
* 1280 x 960 (91 votes)
2%
* 1280 x 1024 (1305 votes)
25%
* 1400 x 1050 (37 votes)
1%
* 1440 x 900 (341 votes)
7%
* 1600 x 1200 (431 votes)
8%
* 1680 x 1050 (1401 votes)
27%
* 1920 x 1080 (103 votes)
2%
* 1920 x 1200 (799 votes)
15%
* 1920 x 1440 (44 votes)
1%
* 2560 x 1600 (122 votes)
2%
* Other (113 votes)
2%

T_Flight

01-09-2009, 03:10 AM

I completely fail to see the point in low res/LOD/filtering gaming benchmarks.
I guess someone wants to believe the age-old prophecy of the elusive "future CPU intensive games". Today we're playing yesterdays "future games" and so far those proverbial CPU intensive titles are nowhere to be seen. When we look at the game benches done on realworld settings we see CPU has little bearing on the results. Once CPU becomes a bottleneck FPS is already so high nobody gives a turd about what the FPS actually is as it's through the roof.

This statement could not be more wrong. There are simualtions out there right now that a GPU upgrade won't do a thing for becasue they are CPU bound. FSX is one of them. No ammount of GPU upgrade in the world will allow you to get flyable settings when the IQ is cranked. It responds to CPU upgrades.

This myth that all that games/sims require is just an GPU upgrade is just that...a myth. In fact, you spoke about the Future/Past pretty matter of factly also. There is another title from the past still being flown that is not just CPU bound...it is entirely CPU bound and doesn't respond at all to GPU upgrades. It's name is Falcon 4.

So now we've dispelled the myths from the past and present, let's focus on the future. We have another title called Fighter Ops, and I can assure you that it too will be heaviliy dependent on Multithreading. I have followed that sims dev diaries from the very beginning and am a member of their forums. It will require not just a strong GPU, but a strong CPU and will take full advantage of the platform...not just the GPU. In fact taking full advanatge of user's platforms is one of the primary missions during development.

Games and Sims have been riding out GPU tech (at least some of the more sloppily coded ones), but that free ride is starting to slow, and they are gonna have to start taking adavanatge of Multithreading, and they are. Titles like GTA IV which is heaviliy bugged right now, but at least they are heading the right direction is one of those.

It ain't all about the GPU. It has never been all about the GPU, and it never will be.

largon

01-09-2009, 03:15 AM

You come up with few niche games played by a small group of Thrustmaster-gripping livingroom pilots and all of the sudden games are in general CPU bound? And it's hardly any wonder that a fighter sim can't be particularly GPU demanding as the game enviroment is virtually a blank sky and a textured ground? Your GPUs shaders are sitting idle on the GIB seat while you whoosh away...

Mats

01-09-2009, 03:27 AM

"Thrustmaster-gripping livingroom pilots":rofl:

The fact that there are exceptions to what largon stated before isn't really interesting in this situation.
There are ALWAYS exceptions.

jmke

01-09-2009, 03:35 AM

i went through a nice collection of reviews yesterday, put all the scores in one big pile and came up with this result chart, compared to the Phenom II X4 940

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/6331/clipboard01x4pv5.png

Full review list (http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/amd-phenom-ii-arrives-official-tests-benchmarks-inside-60419/)

Mats

01-09-2009, 03:36 AM

Great work, jmke! :up: Reviewing the reviews!:D

AbelJemka

01-09-2009, 03:38 AM

Impressive work jmke! :up:

Shintai

01-09-2009, 04:01 AM

Nice jmke :)

Hornet331

01-09-2009, 04:14 AM

Great work, jmke! :up: Reviewing the reviews!:D

Indeed, nice work.

Lightman

01-09-2009, 04:22 AM

What 12 core bulldozer are you talking about. There is a K10 based 12 core that gonna cost something around 2-4000$. Desktop "bulldozer only stands as 4cores with GPU and 4+ cores without.

The 6 core is server only. Plus there aint any desktop above 3Ghz on their roadmap for a good reason. The 6 cores die would be too big for any practical mainstream market. And yes, it is late 2009. Not middle.

I wouldn't say that.

Reason:
Barcelona die is 283mm2
Shanghai die is 258mm2
Barcelona single computing core (excluding L2 cache) is ~25mm2
Shanghai single computing core (excluding L2 cache) is ~15mm2
AMD 65nm SRAM takes ~12mm2/MB
Intel 45ns SRAM takes ~6mm2/MB

Assuming AMD 45nm SRAM is around as dense as Intels (comparing 65nm AMD SRAM is denser by 0.3mm2 than 65nm Intel SRAM, Intels cache is not so dense but performs better) then extra 2x512KB of L2 cache takes 12mm2 of die space.

It was already predicted by Hans De Vries than Istanbul will have die size of around 300mm2.

By simply adding 258mm2 of Shanghai + 2x15mm2 per extra cores + 12mm2 for 2x512KB L2 cache we are getting exactly 300mm2 (some soures were leaking die size of 292mm2, this would mean quite good die size optimization if true)

So reassuming, how big of a difference will make for AMD producing 292-300mm2 dies and selling them for $300.00 when they were producing 283mm2 and selling them for well under $200??

Macadamia

01-09-2009, 04:44 AM

According to economics of scale (for AMD at least), the 6-core part definitely has to come to desktop.
AMD unlike Intel doesn't produce a mask like taking a dump everyday.

@Lightman L2 and L3 both are around the 7mm2/MB mark I think.

Hornet331

01-09-2009, 04:56 AM

RPGWiZaRD

01-09-2009, 05:41 AM

Great initiative jmke. :)

So according to that compilation PII is still ~10% slower clock for clock than Intel Yorkfield Q9xxx series (or roughly the same as Kentsfield). So probably ~4.0GHz PII is around the performance levels as Yorkfield @ ~3.6GHz unless they scale heavily different in overclocking ratio which I doubt. Pricing seems reasonable but it's only "as good option as Intel" and being so late to respond it's not gonna bring any very huge cash to AMDs account, hope AMD won't have to continue to catching up Intel and could put some decent competition still in future but it looks like it would need an a failure on Intel side and success on AMD side for it to happen. Not to mention i5 will arrive later this year and probably provide some decent performance advantage (which can be confirmed by i7 pretty much) and Intel will control the pricing marketing again (either sell CPUs very expensive/expensier than AMDs parts and squeesh as much $$$ as possible out of every CPU sold or sell a bit cheaper and put a pressure on AMDs lineup which forces AMD to do pricecuts depending what path they decide to go). As a consumer I of course would hope for the latter. :)

leoy

01-09-2009, 06:06 AM

Torchon

01-09-2009, 06:08 AM

WOW, nice job jmke.

Can you please elaborate on how you got those scores? I want to use your chart as a reference point but to do so I need to know the science behind it.

Thanks.

Rammsteiner

01-09-2009, 06:11 AM

imho amd has to bring a hexa core to desktop if they what to stay competitive... just look how much "damage" a singelsocket bloomfield does in the dualsocket server market. In this market we talk about 4 cores + HT vs 8 real cores.
I dont know what's with the i7 stuff all the time? What does it have to do with this is anyway?

Any idea how small the market for i7 is in desktops? Hell, even Phenom does have a bigger market than that. Said this multiple times before, PhII does basicly have the things in house to regain a whole lot of market share, especially for enthusiasts, but i7's place is only with the enthusiasts.

i5 could be a way bigger danger, however that's like 9 months away. AMD has time enough to release eventual new revisions to improve Deneb's performance even more. They better do though before they've to lower prices to humiliating amounts.

For the pure performance i7 is very good, but you pay for that. And unless you really have to live by efficient computing and/or calculating things ASAP, i7 has no real place since even a good clocked dual core would be more than enough to do its job.

AMD has to release a hexa(+) core for servers, that's their main priority and make the architecture more efficient. HT is just fading out inefficiency, it works, now offence, but it doesnt mean AMD is nowhere without HT.

RPGWiZaRD

01-09-2009, 06:18 AM

In overclocker gr's review @ 3.7 deneb yorkfield kentsfield the difference is less than 10% and if u take into account the nb clocks that can add some 2-3% performance beyond the 2-2.2 ghz(goes up to 2.7 most of them;) )the differece is even less.
Something that noone didn't notice is that kentsfiel and yorkfields performance are really similar(maybe 2-3 % difference overall).

Between Kent and York its around 5~6% difference in average (out of 2~13% or so min/max in the comparisions I've seen and depending on app etc), not 2-3%. Also done my own comparision with E6750 vs E8400 and in my favorite application I used to betatest for (PCSX2 ps2 emulator) it was 7.0~7.5% faster at EXACTLY same settings used with both CPUs). Don't forget with Yorkfield you can also run them at a lower CPU multi => higher FSB => higher performance. On my own setup 500x8 (4.0GHz) that I use corresponds to around 4.10 ~ 4.15GHz with 9x multi and 456~461 FSB, that's also like 3% difference. :p:

Metroid

01-09-2009, 06:26 AM

Phenom II is good enough from a competitive perspective, only the price is a bit salted.

The only way that AMD could be even more competitive in the CPU market would be the same approach it used against Nvidia concerning the GPU market:

Answer: Die Shrink step ahead.

Is it possible against Nvidia? Yes

Is it possible against Intel? Certainly not

Fact, AMD depends of third party companies, Intel does not.

Motiv

01-09-2009, 06:27 AM

Fact, AMD depends of third party companies, Intel does not.

In what way does AMD depend on 3rd party companies and Intel not?

Hornet331

01-09-2009, 06:36 AM

I dont know what's with the i7 stuff all the time? What does it have to do with this is anyway?

i5 could be a way bigger danger, however that's like 9 months away. AMD has time enough to release eventual new revisions to improve Deneb's performance even more. They better do though before they've to lower prices to humiliating amounts.

You gave the answer to yourself why i7 is mentioned all the time -> i5 is the exact same cpu and gives the exact same performance on desktops apps, hell some preliminary test show its sometimes faster then a i7.

As it stands now AMD would need a 3.2-3,4ghz deneb to match a i7/i5 @ 2,66ghz.

AMD has to release a hexa(+) core for servers, that's their main priority and make the architecture more efficient. HT is just fading out inefficiency, it works, now offence, but it doesnt mean AMD is nowhere without HT.

HT is not inefficient, actually its a menthod to increase efficincy, so if amd wants to increase efficency of there architecture they dont come around SMT.

A CPU with SMT and the same core count will always be more efficent (aka does more work) then a CPu without SMT and same core count.

SMT comes with relative low silicon budget, compared to a real core.

Jamesrt2004

01-09-2009, 06:41 AM

AMD uses tmsc and ibm for die shrinks n' stuff iirc :)

Shintai

01-09-2009, 06:46 AM

In what way does AMD depend on 3rd party companies and Intel not?

AMD (now?) uses the new foundry company to make its CPUs.

jmke

01-09-2009, 06:53 AM

WOW, nice job jmke.

Can you please elaborate on how you got those scores? I want to use your chart as a reference point but to do so I need to know the science behind it.

Thanks.

those CPUs compared by multiple sites, each benchmark separately ranked in % compared to PIIX4-940, and then average from all of those:)

Slay0r

01-09-2009, 06:57 AM

I wish fanboys from both sides would just poke eachother in the eyes when this kind of threads come up.. I mean, the thread title says "review thread" not "schoolyard :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:ing".

good sum up jmke, by the way. :up:

Donnie27

01-09-2009, 07:06 AM

For the pure performance i7 is very good, but you pay for that. And unless you really have to live by efficient computing and/or calculating things ASAP, i7 has no real place since even a good clocked dual core would be more than enough to do its job.

AMD has to release a hexa(+) core for servers, that's their main priority and make the architecture more efficient. HT is just fading out inefficiency, it works, now offence, but it doesnt mean AMD is nowhere without HT.

Explain Pay for that as in the i7 940 selling for less than the 3800+ in its prime. I'm glad Ph2 920 has a common sense price because those mentioned would have made it an even worse deal. Never mind that though as Q9550 is less as well. Tell that Pay for it BS to folks who bought not only Intel X6800 but many here who both $669 4400+ and $850 FX-55. The whole system cost might be legit but trying to single just i7 is nothing but Fanboi Banter.

One of the more interesting benchmark results we got was what happened to the Core i7 965 in DIEP Chess when HyperThreading was disabled, namely a 20some % drop in performance. Since it really doesn’t matter which setting is enabled when it comes to show the “absolute winner” maybe it is time for AMD to take another look at that technology and potentially complement it with separate L1 caches for the logical CPUs. Just food for thought…

Some folks think AMD could benefit from Hyperthreading. Dirk might have worked with it while at DEC:up:

duploxxx

01-09-2009, 07:14 AM

You gave the answer to yourself why i7 is mentioned all the time -> i5 is the exact same cpu and gives the exact same performance on desktops apps, hell some preliminary test show its sometimes faster then a i7.

As it stands now AMD would need a 3.2-3,4ghz deneb to match a i7/i5 @ 2,66ghz.

is there any decent chart of performance tests done for several apps regarding your i5/i7 statement accept for the super pi and wprime results?

saveus222

01-09-2009, 07:50 AM