AMD Phenom II 920 & 940 Full Review

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadov

When I look at some comments I wonder if those people live on the same planet or are just spoiled brats. :eek:

Deneb was not meant to be a competitor to i7 and thats clear. Just calculate the price difference of the platform (CPU + MB + RAM). Its huge!

Furthermore looking at the results AMD will offer a sexy cost / performance wise platform, that will last much longer then Intel socket 775. Yet again some people are asking for clock per clock comparisons of two different architectures.

With such requests Intel dosent need any marketing, since as a result people who are less it educated and dont know the real price behind it will think that Intel is still leading across board. Though usually when they consider a purchase they are in the price segments where AMD should have the clear recomendation with their platform.

Look at the GPU market, where ATI HD 4870/4850 didnt perform like GTX280 but captured the hearts of users price/performance wise. Why is the CPU market still so different, ignorant or simply ...?

Just a free thought in a foreign language.

---

I think mainly because if you were to buy an entire new computer, the last generation intel cpu (yorkfield) is still faster than the new generation amd cpu.
I am mad at AMD for not being more competitive. They should be shaking the foundations of intel with out-of-this-world performance, yet they have done nothing but releasing last-generation-performing cpu's!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jochenp

I think mainly because if you were to buy an entire new computer, the last generation intel cpu (yorkfield) is still faster than the new generation amd cpu.
I am mad at AMD for not being more competitive. They should be shaking the foundations of intel with out-of-this-world performance, yet they have done nothing but released last-generation-performing cpu's!

---

That would be 2 generations behind now in performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BenchZowner

Don't bother Jochenp.
It's going to end up in flaming and none-sense ( I take it you haven't checked gosh's posts on another high page-count thread )

---

No I haven't bothered with this AMDvsIntel discussion in the past because I did not think there was much to it and thought it was merely a price/performance discussion. But holy crap, the arguments are ridiculous? "They render images in a different way" SAY WHAT?
"Intel just optimized their processor for test" "Multitasking is better on AMD's, I just feel it"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

That would be 2 generations behind now in performance.

---

I'm counting Kentsfield and Yorkfield as one generation, the one just being the optimized version of the other ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sundancerx

turbo? lol just guessing here. some people are saying its not sustainable over long periods of pc use.

---

What kind of turbo? It's not like a combustion engine where you temporarily insert N2O for a higher combustion rate :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jochenp

"Multitasking is better on AMD's, I just feel it"

---

Actually this is something I can confirm from daily use of both AMD and Intel systems.

The AMD platform seems always more responsive, even when im opening IE or other windows in the background. :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jochenp

I'm counting Kentsfield and Yorkfield as one generation, the one just being the optimized version of the other ;)

---

Just like Phenom and Phenom II. Then they are still more than 1 generation behind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadov

Actually this is something I can confirm from daily use of both AMD and Intel systems.

The AMD platform seems always more responsive, even when im opening IE or other windows in the background. :yepp:

---

common are you serieus? :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadov

Actually this is something I can confirm from daily use of both AMD and Intel systems. The AMD platform seems always more responsive, even when im opening IE or other windows in the background. :yepp:

---

Yep that I also noticed whenever I build an AMD rig... but I7 is the same, no lag feel... people are so spoiled nowadays

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trunks

common are you serieus? :shrug:

---

Very serious, it's true...

I don't feel lag with IE or Firefox or anything like that on my AMD system either. It's an A64 3200+ Winchester.
I also don't feel any lag with IE or Windows Media Player or similar on the background with a 3.2ghz Celeron either(my old browsing rig). It's a moot point, and clogging of your OS is mostly responsible for 'lagging' in everyday applications.

That lag that you feel is your LIFE passing you by. Get off the computer and get some fresh air.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jochenp

I don't feel lag with IE or Firefox or anything like that on my AMD system either. It's an A64 3200+ Winchester.
I also don't feel any lag with IE or Windows Media Player or similar on the background with a 3.2ghz Celeron either. It's a moot point, and clogging of your OS is mostly responsible for 'lagging' in everyday applications.

---

Can people leave "feelings" out of this thread? Of course everyone is free to build a system based on they're "feelings" when they open IE, etc., but we still have benchmark applications because those don't flinch and are infinitely more reliable than any kind of end-user "feeling." :p:

Edit: I don't mean you Jochenp, just wanted to make a point, just like you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jochenp

"Intel just made the cpu fast on tests, in real life it isn't as good"?

---

Who wrote that more than you?
If you should quote then copy and paste.

If you can handle a discussion about processor design I can discuss it with you, otherwise just put me on the "ignore list". There is a lot of information about caches and how these processors work. Start there

I didn't quote that one. I asked if that is what you meant.
And don't act like you are the allknowing one talking to some noob. You can talk to me about processor desing, I'm an electrical engineer student.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jochenp

I didn't quote that one. I asked if that is what you meant.
And don't act like you are the allknowing one talking to some noob. You can talk to me about processor desing, I'm an electrical engineer student.

---

Then you must know how these caches work? What is the difference between inclusive compared to exclusive? How does the C2Q work when you are running a lot of threads and how effective is their big L2 cache then?

I'm no hardware engineer and I don't follow these architectures to the finest point. I was actually asking you to enlighten me with proof for your claims. You asked if you can discuss processor design with me and I said I have enough technical knowledge to understand what you are talking about when you make your points.
So your point is that the L2 cash is too big and that threads should not stay in L2 cache?
EDIT: also, on your point of inclusive versus exclusive, intel has inclusive cache because they have a big L2 cache, and with AMD it's the other way around. They both just choose the optimal type for their application. I don't get your point. If intel used exclusive cache the L1 cache would also have to be checked everytime.

Guys, stop please. This thread should be fun and we've already been told that they're close to closing it. I'd rather have information than arguing like this. Some people like AMD. Some people like Intel. Lets move on to actual data for the ACTUAL PROCESSOR IN QUESTION.

Stop it? I just got the feeling that we're finally going to discuss the actual architectal differences. If we can understand on a architectal base what cause which processor to shine in what applications, wouldn't we all be much better informed what to choose as our new cpu?

I have an idea. Why don't you guys create a different thread and discuss your theories on smoothness, responsivnence etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qurious63ss

I have an idea. Why don't you guys create a different thread and discuss your theories on smoothness, responsivnence etc.

---

:up::up:

So you mean a new thread about the performance of the AMD Phenom because that topic doens't belong in this thread??

The flame/trolling does not belong in this thread

So when are you gonna post results?
from all these tests you were gonna do yesterday, today etc.

I know sounds rude and demanding but waiting isn't something I'm the best at with all the teasers around now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

yea i see it the same as well. i am very impressed with i7s performance. they made a pretty nice cpu. but we have to face the facts here. most people buy cpus for things other than running sandra all day or everest. people buy them to actually use them. like playing games. the game performance of the phenom II was good whether you believe it or not. when you are running games that get 150+ fps you can hardly say that i7 destroys the amd cpu when it gets 300 and the amd gets 150. who needs 300 fps? we have to look at a realistic situation. with games that have fps at around 70 or below the phenom is getting close performance to i7. plus it gets lower temps and appears to overclock better. not to mention that its platform is cheaper. so when you look at it yes it gets destroyed by i7 in most of the benchmarks but you have to look at it with the facts that matter. and i would surely accept 55 fps instead of 60 fps for half the price, lower temps, and a chance to overclock it to possibly get the same or better performance than its competing chips. phenom II is a winner in my books even tho its performance can't even match i7.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

amp x volts = watts. just because the volts are higher doesn't mean the power consumption will be higher. my fan uses 12V but does that mean that it consumes more power than my cpu? no so stop using volts as a comparison. the volts have nothing to do with anything. phenom II uses more volts than i7 yet somehow from what we have seen so far it overclocks better. phenom II uses more volts than i7. yet somehow from what we have seen it has a lower power consumption. i don't believe you can use volts to compare different cpus. not even cpus of the same brand.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

the tdp can't be used for a comparison at all. its the real power consumption that matters. i really don't even know why they put tdp on the box.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

well i tried working out the math but then i found out it makes no sense at all. how many watts can i draw at that wattage? do you mean how many amps it will have to draw to reach that tdp? i did the math for that and it is no more than 92.6 amps no more than hmmmmm. so are we looking at how much power the cpu will consume under the absolute worst conditions or are we looking at what its average power consumption is? the average is all that matters. as we don't look for maxiumum fps on a video card review we don't look for maximum power consumption either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

ehhh clock to clock doesn't matter as much if it can oc higher. from what we have seen so far deneb looks to be an amazing ocer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

thats the only thing im really wondering about at this point. we have seen amazing overclocks but they could be cherry picked. i really don't believe they all are but theres a possibility that the majority of them were.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

i really don't know where people are coming from with this whole q6600 > phenom II thing. theres nothing that proves that.


i find it funny that one review comes out and suddenly everyone believes this is phenom IIs fate. we have seen many good things already so i think people need to wait awhile before making conclusions. and to everyone who is bashing phenom II and says it failed. have you ever made a post in the amd forum ever before? it just seems the ones that say it sucks seem to be very uniformed but it won't even matter because whenever phenom II is released everyone will see how it performs. we need more reviews and it needs to actually be released. many people here have had luck with the 9850 and 9950 and the phenom II is way better than both of those so we will have to see how it turns out. as i recall there were many saying that i7 was a fail right before it came out. even intel fanboys. and for reasons like having i7 not being able to use ram with voltage over the cpu voltage. look how that turned out. it doesn't matter at all. just wait until it is actually out before making a conclusion because as the past has shown its not always true.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

so what does my dad have to do with anything? and show me where i said deneb is better than i7. i haven't bashed i7 for anything im just saying that phenom II has its own spot and it doesn't suck. its like the 4850 of video cards. its not the best but it fits in for what some want. if you want absolute performance then sure get the i7 but if you want a cheaper platform that overclocks well, that actually performs at things that matter like games for example not that stupid super pi stuff. and gets lower temps, then get deneb. they are two different leagues and just because it isn't the performance leader doesn't mean that it is bad. the i7 920 can't keep up with the i7 965 does that mean that it is bad and should of never been released? it just seems that many people are losing their common sense and ability to think just because they want to feel that they were right in purchasing their brand over another brand and refuse to believe that the other brand can release anything good.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

its not just about being credible. its about having more reviews than just one. hat if he got a bad chip? what if someone found out something he didn't know? what if there is a review that actually overclocks the chip, looks at power consumption, and takes price/performance into account. im not saying its a bad review or anything just we need to have more no matter how credible the source is and theres more information we need to know. how the chip performs at stock is not a buying point for me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

well said. :up:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

i have never cared for benchmarks. unless you are the kind of person that loves to wake up early in the morning to run super pi 10 times. if amd can hold their own in the gaming benches and stay very close to i7 as it appears they are then thats a winner. for gamers i don't think they are going to pay 4x as much just to get a cpu that nets them an extra 3 fps. get a new video card or oc your video card if you want that. cause sure i like i bench but i only bench to compare how my changes are to what i had before. i don't bench to see if i can beat the competitors product.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

is 3d mark any better? do you get entertainment out of that? how about sandra? are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? i thought i made my point very clear and super pi was just an example.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

i don't recall anyone saying that phenom II will outperform i7. i do remember people saying tho that i7 isn't 5x better than phenom II as the price acts like it is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

see this is exactly what i have been saying over and over. the only people bashing amd are the ignorant ones that don't even know anything about the product. in your post i don't see you saying phenom anywhere. i only see amd, intel, q6600, and i7. if you have no clue what you are talking about then maybe you need to actually read something for once. btw can you tell me what is in the dragon platform? you most likely don't.


gotta love how unbiased you are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

phenom 2 can do better i have seen it with my own eyes. and i know that it has the function of being overclocked as well which is why im wondering how it can be called a full review. its funny all the things that phenom II should be better at haven't been posted in this review. pricing, how well it overclocks, and power consumption. instead all we are seeing is benchmarks that don't even matter and how a cpu performs on that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

i have nothing to post right now as i have never had one for my own use. if i am lucky tho i should have one in a few days. i will post my results then.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

the clock to clock sounds good to me. and add w/e games you like.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

a lot of people also seem to think one review before the product is even launched means everything as well. we need more reviews and it needs to actually come out. the people here in the amd section have had luck with the last phenoms im sure they can do it again. i just don't understand how everyone can come to conclusions so quickly just because they see one thing. and as we all can see phenom II hits the marks it was intended to hit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

wait so im a little confused. i keep hearing this q6600 cpu is better than phenom II. what is this cpu? i don't think i have ever heard of it. because i have heard of the q6600 cpu that they happened to have in this review and somehow i can't see how it is better than phenom II. :shrug: maybe im just blind but idk. w/e i guess fanboys will be fanboys. i wonder what will happen after it is released. will people still be in denial?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

i think its safe to say that the phenom II won't beat out i7. but it will have its niche and should be a successful cpu. just not the performance leader.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

wait what are you talking about? i don't remember ever asking for clock for clock and im saying yes max it out and i don't see myself looking for oc compared to stock intels im just saying how ridiculous does that sound when you say oced intels to stock phenom IIs. maybe if you would read my posts correctly you would understand what i am saying. i don't recall ever saying this was a bad review either im just saying its not a full review and there are other things i want to see. but that doesn't have to be done in this review there can be many others to do that as well. i just think its crazy that so many people are coming to conclusions on just one review that is not even full. this thread would of never been locked if people would have just taken the info and absorbed it in instead of saying phenom II sucks without having any proper info behind that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

we will have to see how the 920 and 940 overclock but for right now its wayyyyyyyyy to early to make conclusions about this. especially when only knowing the performance results from one review. wait a little while and we will see what it can do. and it will evolve over time with boards made for it instead of beta bios. its mostly posts like the one above me now that make no sense at all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

na its cool with me i think hes admitting that those benchmarks are just pure intel biased benchmarks. and he is standing up for the phenom II. but then again i look at his avatar and i think to myself hmmmmmm maybe not.

the fact is that either you run intel or you don't. if you don't you get treated like crap and stepped upon just because you don't feel like spending the money or other things interest you more. somehow even though people make logical decisions when they buy parts of their computer others think they are retarded. now i have been really confused throughout this process of this cpu coming out. the amd section was nice and quiet and deneb didn't even have a name yet. then suddenly we start hearing 6 ghz deneb about 6 months ago. then the amd forum changes. suddenly im siting in there seeing that people are bashing amd out of no where. i then recognized that there are people out that that act as if their cpu is a sports team and they will root for it no matter what. so when they feel as if they have taken a blow or there is a force to be reckoned with they get angry. but sometimes they get angry enough that they feel good inside just to go somewhere to tell someone how much they suck. they refuse to believe anything good can happen and that their team will always win. but the fact that they actually go out to flame and bash others is just baffling. now i buy my cpu as a hobby. not just because i want the best. i want the one that gives me the most entertainment. and if this is wrong then so be it. but i am done hearing about all these fanboys and how much they believe amd sucks even if they have proof or not.

send me a pm if anyone finds anything that might concern me outside of the amd section because i am done with this.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

No, not you again! I thought you run AMD BECAUSE you get their processors for free; meaning you don't have a choice? Need I quote you? It's hard to keep up with your contradictory statements; in fact you've said many things you don't even know you've said; that's what happens when you feel obligated to respond to every post that isn't agreeing with your point of view. Why do you feel obligated to defend a product whose performance you have no idea about!? At least some of us for a while now, have seen results that we deem credible enough to draw conclusions. You may not like those conclusions, but it is within our rights and there's nothing anybody can do about it.

---

maybe i do get some for free maybe i don't always. maybe if you would actually stuff thinking like you know every aspect of my life maybe you wouldn't stop being so ignorant. and who says i have to get amd? amd are just a couple hundred and if i felt like making the switch to intel then no problem. and lmao i find it very funny that you think i know nothing about the performance of this product. i know more than you do by far and i know things that amd hasn't even released to the public yet. you seriously need to rethink your thought process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallag

What is up with the AMD emo kids, Stop getting on like you guys are getting constantly bashed for choosing AMD, The only time that happens is when you try to justify using AMD by saying that everyone is paid of by Intel and phenom is actually faster. Some of you guys are like that kid that found fame on utube for saying "leave britney alone". Stop getting on like people are bullying you personally just because they do not agree with you, I think a few of you have a strategy together to try to make it unacceptable to complain aboUt AMD. STOP CRYING.

op, thanks for takeing the time and I look forward to seeing more of your work.

---

just for you i decided to quote every single post i have made in this thread. none of my posts have anything to do with anyone getting paid by intel and nothing says the phenom is actually faster. i don't recall crying anywhere in the thread like you are saying i am and i don't believe i am getting mad at anyone for not agreeing with me. in the first post i made you can see me saying "i am very impressed with i7s performance. they made a pretty nice cpu." no one in the thread i have said that pheonm outperforms i7 and i have said many times that i7 outperforms phenom and if you want absolute performance then get it. thank you sir for proving my point. you have shown me how ignorant fanboys can be and how you can make things up just so you can justify your bashing of another person even tho that person didn't do one thing you said. pretty much in this thread all i have said is yes i7 is better but phenom II has its spot. and if that is too much for you than so be it, you are just pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jochenp

So you mean a new thread about the performance of the AMD Phenom because that topic doens't belong in this thread??

---

This thread is about the performance of Deneb as it relates to the numbers that are being shown. Which are actual numbers and as such data that can be seen and tested. The whole smoothness, responsiveness theory is just that, a theory that unless you can come up with a way of testing and giving us some sort of data will turn into a "I feel" or "I noticed" thread de-railment that will get us nowhere fast. So again, please stay on topic as it relates to the data that Overclocker_gr is sharing with us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jochenp

Stop it? I just got the feeling that we're finally going to discuss the actual architectal differences. If we can understand on a architectal base what cause which processor to shine in what applications, wouldn't we all be much better informed what to choose as our new cpu?

---

Don't even try playing that game with Gosh.
He's just an arrogant troll, I'm still wondering why he is still here.
You can start talking to your walls, that kind of conversation equals to a conversation with the "knowledgeable" gosh.

Ignore, and STAY ON TOPIC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caveman787

So when are you gonna post results?
from all these tests you were gonna do yesterday, today etc.

I know sounds rude and demanding but waiting isn't something I'm the best at with all the teasers around now.

---

the numbers from games are ready and we are working on charts.


last "night" i went to bed at 8.30 AM.
You think that i am not working on it?