Printable View
Yes, even though no OC was tried, this was a promising review.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
Deneb is a clear improvement over Agena.
(The Italian conclusion was somewhat pessimistic according to Babelfish).
Look at the good power consumption!
Green CPU! (Idle). :D
Unless there is a misunderstanding here, but that's what I read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Jimbo
Dont want to play party pooper, but im not that impressed by the power consumption, its apprx. the same as a similar clocked yorkfield.Quote:
Originally Posted by TL1000S
But i think thats due to the fact that they used a 790FX chipset.
hwbox used a 79-T for power consumption as well. what im happy about is that with my phenom 9600 running at 2.3ghz upgrading to a phenom II at 3ghz uses less power and from the power consumption difference between the 920 and 940 it looks like i might even be able to oc it a bit and still get lower numbers than now. it only went up 2.3W from 2.8ghz to 3ghz on the phenom II while on the phenom I from 2.5ghz to 2.6ghz is 3.45W.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
They test at low resolution to remove the bottleneck from the GPU no?Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
I know, its as if he intentionally skips some posts. :shakes: Anyway, did you see that 170w consumption @ 3.85Ghz or so? Interestingly, the temp was around 50c load but could not prime at 4Ghz, according to Coolaler.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
Now if you listen to Informal, high voltage is no problem for PII; which begs the question: If it can take high voltage and runs cool at 1.6v, why won't it prime at 4ghz? The devil in it is somewhere, don't ask me to find it. :shrug:
maybe but still what does that say? if you want to know gaming results then you want to know what your cpu will get at normal resolutions. as we saw with the hwbox review at 1680x1050 deneb got about the same performance as competing intel cpus and sometimes even better. showing it at 1024x768 is a whole new story.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
Yes, it seems like the power numbers are not adding up.Reviews are coming out and more importantly alot more people are going to start testing these chips so we will know shortly what is really going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Yes, hwbox numbers were the same because the GPU became the bottleneck so those numbers actually say less about the CPU and more about the GPU. The low resolution numbers I think are more informative if you wan't to future proof your rig so that say you upgrade to a faster card in a year or so the chances of your CPU becoming the bottleneck are less likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
not necessarily. the lower resolution numbers don't test the same exact things as the higher ones do. it just seems that if you are going to post gaming benchmarks then you post what people game at. 1280x1024 was the highest i saw and does that make me want to buy it when im running 1650x1080? i want to know how it performs on the resolutions that i run and the resolutions that most others run as well. if they were making the gaming benchmarks to show how futureproof it would be you would think that they would show it at the high resolutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
There are to many resolution to test, and such stuff usually is part of GFX tests and not cpu tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
E.g. Im only interessted in 1920x1200, but since at that resolution most cards just reach its limit it wont tell you how good the cpu is and what you can expect if you later upgrade your gpu. ;) (thats just my viewpoint on that topic) ;)
What do you mean by that? Again, I could be wrong but at higher resolutions you actually testing the GPU and not the CPU since the GPU becomes the bottleneck.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
That's unfortunately true because smost of reviews only show average fps.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
Minimum fps is a good indicator of a weak cpu too.
yea it just seems with new gpus coming about once a year and new cpus coming about one every two years that if the cpus were equal at the higher resolutions then putting in a new video card wouldn't make that big of a difference if any. and you can always overclock too if your cpu becomes a bottleneck. i would be more interested than how it performs now than how it performs years from now when most likely ill have a new cpu anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
what i mean is that if a cpu wins in a benchmark at a lower resolution then it doesn't mean it will be better for gaming. i see testing it at a lower resolution more of a different test than a test that is finding out how futureproof it is. in one situation the cpu is dealing with a lot of small frames while in another its dealing with a lot less larger ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
Another proof this guy knows nothing about what he's talking about. Sig-worthy, but I'll pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
That's uncalled for man. We are all here to learn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
They shouldn't have used a gx for power consumption.
They also could only overclock to 3.6....seriously? everyone here has gotten that easily on stock cooling or worse.
They don't seem to get that you can overclock nb and hypertransport etc. when overclocking phenom's guess review sites are so used to intel.
Minimum fps should be used in reviews aswell...since cpu power influences that before and after overclocking from what I've seen and fps stability is very important for gaming.
I also forgot to meantion when it came to power consumption there is no way it'd be as bad as it was if they turned on cool n' quiet....which now runs the processor at 1ghz and 1v apparantly which should dramatically reduce idle power consumption.
If only that were true. This is the internet!Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
i really don't care. whether i know what i am talking about or not he will still find a way to bash me. its fine with me tho since i can't read any word he says and even if i did they are pointless. lmao just like when he says he knows more about amd than me. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
The best processor is the processor that deliver most power on the lowest FPS areas. One way to filter out low FPS is to use a slow video card and/or increase the resolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
Phenom is a very good game processor. I handles threading very well, the cache (L3) on Phenom is 32-way set associative and on Phenom II it is 48-way set associative. I think Core 2 is 8-way set associative (don't remember now).
Phenom has more places to put the memory in the cache, on Core 2 the memory don't have that many places and when memory use is increasing then Core 2 needs to go to main memory a lot more often compared to Phenom. The cache on Intel CPU is more sensetive when you multitask or games use a lot och memory from different areas (like when there is fights etc in the game).
Testing a game for 10 minutes and there is one action scene for 1 minute, then Intel will gain a lot more FPS on those 9 minutes when there is low activity in the game.
Benchmarking at higher resolutions also show how well the Phenom II scales with the gpu. 1440x900 should be the lowest resolution benched at, IMO.
Review back up at Hexus.
And HardOCP.
And Guru3d
hereQuote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
And probably one of the more objective sites around, Tech Report.
Oops, hadn't seen that. My bad; I'll stop now.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
lol np most people don't go outside of the amd forum. just thought id show it to people who missed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquineas
I really don't know what they are tweaking for. I was pointing out that historically, AMD brings out parts at the 'design center', and as they tweak the process, they bring out both lower power and higher speed parts. In the server world, they already announced that there will be a high speed 'SE' and a low power 'LE' added to the Shanghai line in 2009. So my assumption is the same will happen with Phenom II.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
As far as the wattage, the methods many reviewers use to measure power are measuring total board power or even total system power. Those might be interesting if you are concerned about total energy draw, but are pretty much useless for determining processor wattage, since they include chipset, RAM, and anything else on the board.
The method I use measures actual heat out from the processor. Once I get a 940 and test it. I'll be able to say for sure what the results are. Based on the few tests that gave enough information to do the calculation, the estimate of under 100W at 4G seems reasonable.
did any of the reviews push NB?
lol, You gotta be kidding. It will be closer to double that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Jimbo
you know that bumper sticker that says 'Gravity - not just a good idea, it's the law'? That's kind of what you are doing. Not to be arrogant, but this is physics, not someone's opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
A heat load that produces a 10C rise on a .1 C/W calibrated sink is 100W. Doesn't matter if it is a resistor, a light bulb, or a CPU. Since I don't have one of the Phenom II parts, I have not done any direct testing. But I do know the thermal coefficients of many popular high performance coolers, and based on the heat numbers we have seen from a number of posters, it looks like the Phenom II parts are running pretty cool with decent overclocks.
The wattage of CPUs under various load conditions is one of the areas where even experienced techies get it completely wrong - like the guy who measured 170W by taking the amp draw on the secondary MB connector and multiplying by 12. However, at least on his 3.85G run, he was using a XIGMATEK HDT S983 V2, a good cooler with .13 C/W performance. Unfortunately, he did not measure temp at the base of the cooler, and give ambient, which would have allowed us to tell what his real CPU wattage was.
So you can think what you like - but the data out on the web points to significantly lower wattage than previous phenom, and probably in the ball park of the better C2D parts (which are also very impressive). The fact that most OC requires jacking up the NB and RAM voltage (which increases their dissipation) means that getting a CPU to CPU comparison is impossible using the methods most reviewers use. Measuring power draw at the wall is easy, but also not very useful for anything other than total system load. I have verified the accuracy of the thermal gradient measurement by comparing results with instrumented VRMs, and both give the same results.
I didn't look for that, actually. Basically, all the reviews managed to get 3.6-3.8 on air.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazydiamond
Conclusions that I gathered from all the reviews:
Pros:
- Good entry price
- Strong, although not spectacular, performance increase from Agena
- Good upgrade for current AM2+ users
- Good power consumption and price when whole Dragon platform is utilized
- AMD did what they needed to do to stay viable in the market
Cons:
- Not enticing enough to make current mainstream Intel users switch
- Intel could drop prices on Q9450/Q9550 to make things hard
- Reviewers still recommend Intel setup if starting from scratch
I think a lot will be determined by price. If AMD can manage to drop prices ~$40 in the next month or two, I think we'll see the market start to even out again. I just hope Intel doesn't drop prices on the Yorkies too much. We need AMD to gain some momentum here.
Go AMD! Make me proud once again! :up:
Out of all the reviews Guru3D & hardwarecanucks were good.
Others said 3.5Ghz is the limit for Oc and that is just BS.
New review:-
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...=672218&page=1
http://www3.custompc.co.uk/reviews/6...k-edition.html
I see. Well the method I was talking about uses the formula P=I*E. So Watts is a function of current and voltage. The way you are getting wattage numbers is by reading how much heat a chip generates?Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Jimbo
I was reading some where when reivewing the i7 they where having troubles keeping stable at .36ghz so they brought it to water cooling and got 3.733ghz and yet they always Keep any AMD away from this kind of thing >_> typical bias reviews use water cooling on one and not the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
Yep as I expected most reviews just wanna say deneb/ Phenom IIis no comparison to anything intel has....gotta love bias.
The overclocking saddens me aswell they never overclock nb/ht ot htt and they couldn't get higher than 3.6 stable I wonder why perhaps because that's all intel could usually get on q6600.
Power consumption...most didn't turn on cool and quiet etc. so they inflated idle consumption.
Funny how when they did do things right it was more equal between the 2 companies processor's...to those reviewers good job for not submitting to intel's payroll.
I mean come on how does phenom II manage to lose by 20 fps+ in a gpu limited situation?
Correct - the 'I' you are measuring may or may not be going to the CPU, and likewise you don't know what 'E' actually gets supplied internally, but there is no question about the heat load.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
Here's a good write-up on heatsink characterization by some guys who actually know what they are doing:
http://www.frostytech.com/testmethod_mk2.cfm
Just got back home with my sweet little puppy 940:cool:
I'll installing it for the next hour or so (adding some more stuff while I'm at it) yoo bad my new motherboard wasn't in yet... my Gigabyte GA-MA790X-DS4 will have to do for another week or so (my dreaded friend asked me to order a graphics card from the same shop and now that one has gone from in stock to backorder all of the sudden:shrug:)
So let's see what this baby can do, I'll report back on the wattage by the way, I have a Zalman fancontroller with watt's reading for the complete system. Isn't overly accurate but I can compare it to my Phenom 9500 I use ATM...
Solid and unbiased review from Anandtech. They think that early in 2009, it is likely that Intel will drop prices to change the competitive map, and that AMD will respond with higher speed parts, and so on. All in all should be a good year for overclockers...
Wait, what? An AMD CPU recommendation?
After over two years of us recommending Intel's Core 2 lineup almost exclusively, AMD finally released a real alternative, one that's not just similarly priced, but actually higher performing than the price-competitive Intel part.
...
If Intel were to push its prices down like that, the Q9550 would compete with the Phenom II X4 940, and the Core 2 Quad Q9400 would go up against the Phenom II X4 920 instead. If this happens, the conclusion I mentioned on the first page changes. The Phenom II X4 940 can't beat the Q9550, and the 920 can't beat the Q9400. Intel has the ability to do this; it's got faster chips that are more expensive and has just enjoyed 2+ years of unchallenged competition. The Intel from the Pentium 4 days may have let AMD launch Phenom II unchecked, but today's Intel is much more...dynamic.
The take away is that today Phenom II competes with the Q9400 and the Q8300, but by the end of this month that may change to the Q9550 and Q9400.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492
I wouldn't really call that a recommendation for Phenom II. It sounds more like what Intel can do to make it look like a less competitive chip.
You know it's gotta be good if Anand likes it. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by YukonTrooper
The thing is, you can get a Phenom II 920 as a combo deal with 790GX for $294 right now. That is a great crossfire board with incredible onboard video to boot. Intel is going to have to do some HARDCORE price slashing to compete with that value...
Are people really happy with ph2? I mean not even slightly disappointed? Read the comments on anandtech and others and it seems that most are disappointed, It still lacks clock for clock against all Intel quads and the overclocking and power consumption dont live up to the hype.
IoC mentioned that the production parts had minor improvements from the ES parts - Anandtech seems to confirn that.Quote:
Originally Posted by iandh
In fact, the latest retail steppings that AMD displayed this past week showed significant improvements in overclocking headroom compared to the press samples we utilized. 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.
I'm sure people who were hoping for an i7 killer are disappointed - but those with more realistic expectations (that AMD would produce a part which is price competitive with equivalent C2D parts, and offers good overall platform advantage for OC) should be pleased with the results.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
The advantage for buyers is big, too - wider choice and lower costs for all but the extreme upper end of the market.
I doubt Intel will take pricing action on i7, but they will probably improve Penryn value, and may also extend the life of those parts, which is a good thing IMO.
I don't think we can say yet how the power will play out. C2D had great power management which could be improved without much work, where Phenom was a hog for sure. Phenom II might be in the same power range as C2D - time will tell. AM3 may make a difference too...
I guess the "power consumption" depends on how you measure it. SOmeone used a temp probe and some elementary physics to get a pretty decent number;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
There are a whole lot of results out there now, and eve if it's not i7 killers they've released I'd say AMD did an A-W-E-S-O-M-E job - these chips are HUGE improvements over Agena, and that's the only fair comparison. The fact that they can compete with Intel quads is also a good sign.
I don't really see why Anandtech's conclusion should be so important, either. it seems obvious to me that that's just some Intel fan's opinion. "If Intel chooses to do this and that"... well, that's not the case TODAY, so its' a useless comment. The fact is that the Deneb platform gives you alot of performance for your $$$.
I agree with "Uncle" and "Knopfler".
PHII shoud be compared to PH1, and as such it is a great step in the right direction.
920/940 *do* compare great with current Intel C2Q (Q6600/Q9300/Q9400).
For anybody wanting to build/buy a new quad-system there is no reason to prefere/choose Intel over AMD.
For those already having an AM2+ rig the extra cost of purchasing a 920 as an upgrade is a matter of taste really, and perhaps support the "Green team" (both AMD and environment.. as in saved energy). :)
So the new top end AMD competing with the q9300-q9400 is enough? I remember that when people suggested this months ago they got a serious flaming, People expected more. To be fair for the price deneb is ok but I was hopping for some competition in the high end, I find it hard to get excited about a product that would have been good 1.5 years ago.
I agree - this seems to be a very good part.Quote:
Originally Posted by knopflerbruce
Anandtech had an interesting chart on OC - and they pointed out that the production parts would probably move Phenom II 940 to 4.1G or more.
But even using their ES they got the following, which was done using STOCK cooler, and shows the Phenom II 940 looking pretty good:
Processor ............ Stock Voltage . Overvolt. % Increase . Vcore
AMD Phenom II 940 .. 3.2GHz ......... 3.9GHz ...... 30% ..... 1.52V
AMD Phenom 9950 BE 3.03GHz ....... 3.38GHz ..... 30% ..... 1.45V
Intel Core i7-920 ..... 3.83GHz ....... 4.0GHz ....... 50% ..... 1.35V
Intel Core 2 Q9550 ... 3.48GHz ....... 3.91GHz ..... 38%...... 1.35V
seems like a joke but jimbo does know what he is talking about. he is way above all of us in that field.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
lol and everyone tells me that frosty tech sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Jimbo
the thing here is that most of us are enthusiasts. we buy the parts because we like them. for more mainstream users they might look at the graphs and think differently and choose intel over amd but most of us here don't need absolute performance. most people just like tweaking and messing around with the systems to get more performance. so deneb is a dream for amd users. im really happy with the power consumption since it blows the original phenom out of the water and i bet running it at 3.5ghz would produce the same or less power than my phenom 9600 does at 2.3. it does stay really close to the core 2's power consumption even with the imc and large l3 cache too. and the fact that cool and quiet can reduce the clocks down to 800 mhz and the below 1V is just nice for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
What he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
:clap:
Could not agree more.
Any HTT overclocking reviews?
I'd like to see a comparison of a multiplier and a HTT overclocked 940.
Benchmarks (even though I don't expect much difference), temps and power consumption.
uncle jimbo, Now that the reviews are out and power consumption is known do you still think that "the estimate of under 100W at 4G seems reasonable."
Well, it probably is too low by 20-50%, but it won't be 200W as suggested earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
67W 4core Prime @3GHz is not bad. (and that's before PWM, radiator is dissipating 5-25% less due to PWM efficiency)
well for the cpu alone it might be correct. we are seeing under 200W for the entire system load and as lightman said the pwms use a lot of power. i wish someday people would design some good ones. or get something better than passive cooling on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Let me put this in perspective -Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
I did a fair amount of testing on a C2D E8600, which is IMO a great combination of speed and low power. I was able to set it up to deliver 4G with idle power of 30W and load power around 80W at 1.26 vCore. Total power to the board was 220W... so RAM and chipset used nearly twice as much power as the processor itself.
Because of improved power management, i7 has lower idle power, but runs up at load. A 965 at stock clock and voltage was under 25W at idle, but over 140W at load. Power to the board on the 965 was over 290W at load.
I have tested the ASUS M3A79-T Deluxe MB, which uses 790FX. I have found that with a 4830 graphics card, with 4GB of DDR2, and the processor load subtracted, it draws around 90W with a CPU intensive load and everything at stock voltage. That can go up a lot with increased voltage on RAM and chipset - up to 120W or more.
So with a number of phenom II screen shots showing total load at 170W, 180W and such at speeds near 4G, it does seem reasonable that the processor is drawing less than 100W of the total.
But all of that is guesswork until I get one of the Phenom II chips and test it myself. There is not enough good data available from other testers to do more than a ball-park estimate.
I can't comment on their other review work, but their heatsink characterization method is perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
thanks jimbo, I look forward to your results.
yea thats what i use them for. i think many people look at it and see that they put the TRU above the TRUE and just disregard them. thanks for the info on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Jimbo
Hmm at least idle it uses the same as my 9500 ;-) can't do much more atm because my PSU isn't too shabby... and still trying to find out why some things act a bit weird (got a Scythe Musashi with 2 fans, one runs @1250 while the other runs @2050, and my all new artic freezer extreme is going fast/slow/fast/slow/etc and give unreliable RPM numbers, while my fancontroller works flawless with all other PWM fans....:shrug:
So you measure temp at the base of heatsink? So that means the better your heatskink is at dissipating the heat, the lower the temp at the base of the heatsink should be, correct? So how does heat translate into the PIE formula? Power is still a function of current and voltage so how would lowering the temp of the heatsink affect power draw?Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Jimbo
After reading almost all the PhII reviews on the net i came to at least one conclusion about the OC tests carried out by the reviews that most of them were utter arse holes at the job.
Some sites were BIAS enough to use the default AIR HSF and overclock and then rate the max OC at 3.4-3.5Ghz what the hell is that suppose to be.
Others upped the Ghz but not the Voltage enough or touching the HTT with an excuse that something was apparently wrong with their sample.
Then there were the great peple who say we used Win 64 for the test and in their i7 review they used win 32 bit wtf.
Seems that the whole pc community is ruled by Intel or something too many simple mistakes made by pro people. Also the fact that in most games the PhII's had min FPS around I7 920's min FPS rate was not mentioned in the conclusion...
I've something weird, running the stresstest of AMD overdrive my Phenom II core temp goes to 63 degrees celsius and settles there. Much higher then in the reviews... also my motherboard reports a 55 degrees celsius temperature(which is measured the old fashion way. All at idle and on C&Q it's about 38...
Is my HSF mounted wrong, are their numbers incorrect or am I just crazy?
My CPU cooler is the Freezer Extreme. Not a bad cooler by any means...
Start with remounting heatsink and if that doesn't work try using an other program to read temps and possibly look at BIOS rev for your motherboard.Quote:
Originally Posted by The PyroPath
A CPU is not a resistive load, and actual draw varies from one microsecond to the next. There is also no way to determine 'I' for a CPU unless you instrument the VRM. So it's not practical for most people to use P=I*E since they can only guess at 'I'. We do know that a CPU does no mechanical work, so all of the input power is turned into heat. Basically the heatsink method gives that power directly.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
Since we know (or can determine) the thermal resistance of the heatsink, we can determine the power dissipated by applying the thermal resistance Tr (in C/W) where C is the difference between the base and ambient temperature. The formula is Crise / Tr = Wload. The actual temperature at the base, along with ambient, is only used to determine the rise.
Lowering the temperature at the base will have some effect on total power, but not very much unless the change is large. It's always best to use a big cooler, but the goal is to get rid of the heat, not reduce power.
If for some reason you want to calculate amps input, and you know power (from the heat load) and E (from the Vcore) you could use I=P/E to find amps... but unless you are designing a VRM, I'm not sure why you would do that.
Uncle Jimbo what do you make of this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Jimbo
From here: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=213691&page=5Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler
jimbo doesn't some of the power get burned off as sound? not much but a little? thats why the computer makes noise even when all fans are off?
Not sure what to say about this... he doesn't give a lot of detail, and the numbers make no senseQuote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Probably not a lot of power going out as sound. think about those singing xmas cards that still play a year later, off a watch battery. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
Remounted HSF, re-applied thermal grease, switched fan from controller to motherboard connector. Relocated RAM so it doesn't block CPU cooler airflow.
Result: stressed=58 idle=38, but my room is a lot colder at night ;-) So I don't think it really worked...
allready updated the bios, checked the thermal grease again, it's applied the way it should be.:shrug:
used overdrive, bios and speedfan to determin temperature, all tell me the same, so I doubt they are all wrong...
I'm going to try the stock hsf tomorrow, I'm done for tonight...
Are people really happy with PII's? Well can't speak for all but i sure am. $230-$275 chip ready to drop into existing system. Low power low heat, undervolts and overclocks like crazy on air, more with water, lots more with cold. It is a cheap overclocking chip with respecatalbe performance that is a stepping stone between agena and 6 core chips with DDR3.
As someone noted, AMD started off with a 3ghz part in a new series. Where they usually start off with 1.8ghz - 2.3ghz or so and end up with 2.6ghz -3.0 within the next few months. Stands to reason that the coming months will yield 3.4ghz - 3.8ghz with refined process and design enhancements. Which would indicate that what was already doing 4ghz on air in overclock would get a further push as the cores are tweaked, while existing chips drop further in price.
Have i missed something? Should this make me sad?
I don't really care much about intel's $800-$1000 platform minus the gpu being at the top of performance mountain. Really didn't expect an I7 killer because it was never AMD's intention. Why? Because that isn't where 95% of the market is. Where AMD has clearly won is in power consumption, both system and cpu, heat output, cost and upgrade pathway.
It's an overclocking chip. It's cheap, i can run my games in 19x12. Why cue the sad panda?
As for the power consumption, almost every site i've seen is testing Total System Draw as UJ pointed out. Almost useless for finding cpu power as...and this is a surprise, when the system is stressed, power draw is increased on everything. NB, SB HD, RAM, GPU, AND the cpu.So a total system draw of below 200w under load is fairly impressive considering that was closer to what phenom 1s consumed when overclocked alone and what I7s consume now.
But then as ajaidev pointed out the reviews in general were dissapointing in how they were actually carried out, lots of intel bias, which is more and more usual, after market cooling for intel and stock for amd while OCing, no OCing results despite posting the numbers the 64bit listing and 32bit testbed is a common tactic i've seen countless times when Intel and AMD are compared.
Have to agree with knopflerbruce, Anantech shouldn't be the deciding factor their reviews and reccomendations have had less and less weight as they end almost every review with a bit of optimism in how intel will negate AMD or nvidia will negate ATI's new part. Yes intel might do this and intel might do that.
In a perfect world intel would fess up and change the marketing slogan for I7's to "Amd inside" But that would be truth in advertising and that's just an oxymoron.
The only reliable source of hardware info more and more seems to be first hand testing or in forums, getting info from unbiased and knowlegable sources.
Comparing AMD to intel seems to be like two people arguing on the phone about the tempature with one inside ...
"it's hot in my house
it's cold outside
but...it's hot in my house
well its cold outside
Both are right, and true, but neither one is relevant to the other.
$800-$1000? Where are you getting your numbers? I just purchased an i7 920, 3GB DDR3, and the Gigabyte X58-DS4 for $750 Canadian; that's $630 US.
And my point is you do not even need to compare it to i7, Just intels low-med quads, And total system draw is not important now? Temps are a lot higher than people thought? Overclocking is not as good as the es samples AMD sent out to be leaked? IPC still below kentsfield? And people think this is a great result? Come on, Sure you can make the argument that it is as good as any cpu when gpu limited etc but that is nothing new. Dont get me wrong, It is ok and will help AMD a lot because people like me will actually consider AMD now instead of instantly thinking Intel when planing low end builds for people, But it is a far way from great. I was hopping for something that would be competitive against i5 when it comes out but instead AMD will be competing with low end quads by then. Basicaly the performance gap between i5-i7 and ph2 is bigger than the performance gap between penryn and phenom1. Still, every build I do atm has a hd4850 in it so AMD are not left out in the cold.
Found my problem, replaced with stock cooler and get lower temps in a warm room, 58 under load and 36 at idle, looked at the surface of my cooler and the prolem seems to be that the base has a few little sharp points that aren't supposed to be there, it even marked my brand new CPU :-( So I'll be going for a little journey to get it replaced:down:
Updated with some of the current reviews, yay!
Well at that price i can guess at the ramQuote:
Originally Posted by YukonTrooper
That's $300 for the entry level chip
$260 for the low/mid level Motherboard (cheapest being $210, highend $400)
$70-80 for 3 gigs of 1066 or maybe 1333 ram. About the cheapest you can get and not by any means high end or best OC solution
Fail to include AF HS as intel box coolers are crap and need one to overclock. which would take cost closer to $700 and still is not ideal for OC.
$150 6 gigs of the cheapest triple channel is which running 64bit vista would require
$564 2.93 ghz i7 940
Same motherboard takes it to $974 and bumping up to the $300 mid level board and an AF heatsink brings it closer to $1100
Comparitively existing AM2+ costs $235-$275 to drop in a chip
$150 for mid level GX OC board
$40 for for 4 gigs of OC ram, $80 for 8 gigs
Can use existing coolers
System cost $425 -$505 Which is still not the cheapest you can go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
- If you'll notice, some of the pens outperform I7 in some things
- As i said, system draw has nothing to do with power consumption of the cpu itself, and aside from that phenom II has system load 25%+ lower then I7
- Temps and overclocking were based on stock box cooler for PII's
- Overclocking was done with stock box coolers while intel was getting water in some reviews even than PII overclock was not benched. Yet the consensus is still 3.9-4.1ghz on air with the right board which is a high end 790fx that is closer to the cost of one of the cheapest i7 boards.
- As for your use of gpu, i think it has less to do with "not wanting to leave AMD out in the cold" and more to do with the 4850, 4870 and 4870x2 being the best price/performance ratio on the market as they have been since the day they were launched.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iocedmyself
Yep, after being such a rabid supporter of Phenom II I've toyed with the idea of an i7 over the past few days (just switched my GPU to Nvidia 55nm 260 for use with the 3D system soon to be released), and I realized that I may need more horsepower to make that happen. After pricing out an i7 system, it costs WAY more than I thought to assemble even a decent-ish midrange setup. Not even close to being worth it.
I guess if I want to go SLI I'll have to go SLI-on-a-stick, the X58 is totally out of the running for the moment at least. It's price to performance ratio just isn't there.
Is there any recommended CPU Air cooler to reach 4 ghz or is trail and error.
Well i know a Artic Freezer 64 Pro wont cut it or you have a very good CPU. I guess you will need something like a Scythe Mugen/Infinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by instred
Thanks, I was just checking it out. Looks good.
Hoping to get the 945BE next month when released, if I can hold off.
Trying to line up the other parts as needed. Truth be told, I would be happy getting a solid 3.6-3.7 stable system.
Forget about Geforce 3D for now. At least until GT212.Quote:
Originally Posted by iandh
Just to let you guys know, got my fan replaced and now my idle temp without C&Q is 38 and the load temp is 48, so that's a good jump :-) that's with the arctic freezer extreme. (Planning on a polish and stuff when the rest of my new system arrives(Motherboard/PSU).
Too bad my powersuply isn't going to be here before next weekend, I cann't do crap atm :-( my PSU is ok with running windows, asking it to power a game is a hole diffrent story:ROTF:
What I can tell you is that, with C&Q disabled and running 3GHz, the diffrence between idle&load is about 50 watts. My old 9500 system ran @ 175/180 watts at idle, after adding some 1066 DDR2 (going from 2=>4GB), adding a new CPU/GPU cooler and adding another system fan, my system uses 201 watts at idle. SO that a 21/26 watts increase after adding twice the RAM, installing extra fans and going from 2.2=>3GHz
If you guys got any questions or thing you'd like me to do which doesn't involve gaming or serious overclocks, don't be affraid to ask :-)
First off, I'm comparing completely new systems from scratch. The upgrade path is a good point, but is only really relevant if you're an existing AMD user.Quote:
Originally Posted by iocedmyself
As far as low-end, mid-range, and high-end is concerned, you can only really argue these points if both platforms are comparable performance wise. If this was a comparison between Deneb and Yorkfield, it would make much more sense; however, the fact remains that you can buy all the cheapest Nehalem stuff, or all the most expensive Deneb stuff, but the Nehalem system still out performs it by a large margin. Furthermore, X58 boards, regardless of the model, are enthusiast level boards; the mid-range boards haven't even been released yet.
The ram I purchased for $150 was 3GB of OCZ DDR3-1333 rated at 7-7-7-20, so, in fact, it's actually higher grade DDR3.
I don't think bringing aftermarket coolers into the discussion is logical, as we're comparing core systems. If you're going to add something to one system, by logic, you have to add it to the other. Besides, if you're an over-clocker, you're going to buy aftermarket cooling anyways, regardless of what chip it is. I'd also like to point out that you can simply buy an LGA1366 retention bracket for most already existing AM2/LGA775 coolers, with many other kits already on their way.
Anyways, my point isn't that Nehalem is the better buy, as that's simply not true. Deneb is definitely the platform to get for price/performance when comparing against Nehalem, I don't think there is any argument to that. I was only a little confused by the $800-$1100 figure tossed out for a Nehalem system, as that's clearly not the whole case.
This is the way I look at it: A Nehalem build is about 25% faster, while also being about 50% more expensive than a Deneb build. So, it obviously isn't for everybody, but the difference isn't as damning as some people make it out to be.
im getting sick of hearing about intel over and over again in the amd section.
QFT:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
(Have waited for like eternity to use qft, now i have, im happy :yepp::yepp::yepp:)
Oh my, what kind of cooler is it so I'll know to stay away from that manufacturer in the future?Quote:
Originally Posted by The PyroPath
It's a Arctic Freezer Extreme, the people in the shop I bought it at went :shocked: when I showed it to them, they never saw something like that and the replaced it. Marking on the CPU isn't serious fortunately. And every brand has slipups, should have been cought at QC but for some weird reason, then ones that slip trough always find me :(
You don't have to stay away from a brand because of this, if the majority of the coolers were like that you'd hear alot more complaints:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquineas
How come?Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
I've heard generally positive reviews, as long as I can pull 70-80 fps I should be out of the headache zone.
(sorry for ot)
edit: BTW, I already have a 3D capable 120Hz Mitsu DLP, so the only additional investment for me would be the 200 bux for the 3d glasses. Worst case scenario it sucks and I sell it on ebay and lose a few dollars.
Found this interesting.. The Phenom II At The End Of Air Cooling
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/2893/air5pp5.png
Shows how stable the overclock on air cooling for each benchmark... :up:
lol i saw their phase and ln2 ones but not the air one. thanks, it looks good on that too.
So basically once it's stable, it's prety much stable give or take 100-200Mhz. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostbuster
I would say Prime95 would be the best app to prove stability.Quote:
Originally Posted by iandh
I know that I am way outside the common accepted thinking on this site, but I don't think unnaturally stressing a componenet to see if it is stable is particularly necessary for non-critical apps.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
I suppose if you were folding/crunching and didn't want to lose WU's, or if you had a comp used for competition gaming where a crash could cost you a win, then it might matter.
This is somewhat like the furmark/4870 debacle... the app put an unnatural load on the cards, something that they NEVER would see in a real life application, and it caused them to fry.
I may be 4Ghz game stable with my stock bare mosfets on my mobo, but running Prime95 for an hour may cause smoke to come out of my machine whereas if I would have just left well enough alone I would be happily gaming along.
I don't mind the existence of heavy stress tests for records and to make standards, but for my personal use I prefer medium ones rather than heavy, such as a couple hour gaming session in Crysis, or maybe a few 3dmark runs. A lack of stability will usually present itself without the need to unduly stress your components.
Fair enough. I personally run Prime95 because I like to push my hardware to the limit. It has nothing to do with gaming or benchmarking but to push the limits on the hardware. In other words it's a sport. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by iandh
yea just as iandh said i find my comp stable whenever i can run all my programs completely stable without a problem. its nice to run prime for a little while just because it confirms that it is stable even under the worst possible conditions but i don't believe it is necessary. i recently had been using corsair dominators and on stock settings with stock voltage it was unstable. so i set it to 2.2 and it was still slightly unstable. but it was stable for every program i had just not for prime. and i ran it for that for like a year without a problem. now i don't have that issue with my ocz platinums. i can actually undervolt those.:rolleyes:
my phenom on SB600, does things nicely, its surely a nice 700 mhz running stock voltage, but unfortuantly, dfi have been late on good bios for 790gx (LP JR edition) and the 790FX m2r. =/
OTQuote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
I've had meh results with Corsair for the last few years. :(
My G.Skill cheapo DDR2-800 are undervolted .1v and running DDR2-900 with their rated timings. :cool:
as do both of my pairs of g.skill ddr2-800Quote:
Originally Posted by iandh
IM picking up a PH2 in the next week or so, i will be happy to finally see good scaling on the GPU side of things (my 9850BE @ 3.2 doesnt push the cards to their max)
Got a strange idea for a review. I would like to see the power consumption for different setups over a full workday. Then compare it to most work done. It would require a workplace with at least 100 employees who will work one week with each system. To make it at bit beefier, why not do some comparisons between different uses also, like multimedia, office, CAD and such. Someone willing to do it for me? :)