Its already available at newegg, 920 & 940...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
Printable View
Not really...Quote:
Originally Posted by Morais
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ryboto
So no?
Its a THG wannabee site it seems.
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_i...ew/stars-8.jpg
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.
Yep. Its abit like buying the cat in the sack with these AM2+, unless you want a complete upgrade of everything next time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manabu
925 should come next month. 945 in April.
http://techreport.com/r.x/phenom-ii/cine-power-idle.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
http://hothardware.com/articleimages/Item1252/power.png
http://images.tweaktown.com/imagebank/ap2940_test16.gif
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...-920-review/13
Well, doesnt change my point of view in rating denebs from 125W to 95W
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
wow, you really pick and choose what you read in people's posts. I said "around".
at idle:
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_...ii/winidle.gif
and at load:
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/amd_...i/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.
You mean a step behind yorkfield on a ddr3 board.Quote:
Originally Posted by noki
Might happen their sales are down 23% and not moving expensive mobos is not going to make their partners happy I'm sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
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.
Don't know but still waiting for the Damage Control:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
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:
Tough task.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
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:
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
Oh, this made me laugh so hard. Pure genius. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by savantu
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
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.
AMD Phenom II Review
Anandtech
Bit-tech
Computer Base
Driver Heaven
EB
Guru3d
H
Hexus
Hot Hardware
Lab 501 (Romanian)
Legion Hardware
Legit Review
Lost Circuit
Over Clockers Club
Tech Report
Xbit Labs
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler
NB at 3.4 ?!?! :shocked:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Exactly what I've said in earlier in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo13
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, 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 :)
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/revie...nom_II_IHS.jpg
Pretty much confirms what alot have been saying while people reported ultra low temps. They simply read wrong data or just bugged diodes.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler
For gaming Phenom 2 looks horrible. With basicly Q9400 area for the 940.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/a...charts/ut3.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/a...charts/wic.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/a...rts/crysis.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/a...charts/fc2.png
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/a...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....
Diodes are broken. BIOS reads 17C to 19C, AOD reads 19C no matter what.
no his chip senor is probably broken or never worked at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
hondaguys temps changed when OC.
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.
Let's see if the :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:ing crowd has the backbone to apologize.Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
I'm relaxed. I'm just tired of reading all the BS that people spew.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
I'll tell everyone here. GET OFF THE UPGRADE TRAIN AND SAVE YOURSELF SOME AGGREVATION AND MONEY.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ryboto
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
(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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
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.
I'd say anything he could post to show Intel in a more postive light is fair game.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Who would have thought that the Phenom II review thread would have turned into a pro-Intel dumping ground. :rolleyes:
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...
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.
and buying a dead platform with no new cpu releases at all is a better solution according to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
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.
Yeah, if you throw out every benchmark Phenoms do well in they look terrible!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
:rolleyes:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
DDR3 can't change anything...but, the hope dies last.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
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:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ryboto
What are you talking about? I haven't seen such civilised discussion in a long time. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Maxxximum
Graphs are tiny and this belongs in the Phenom II review thread.
U can't expect DDR3 to change the whole picture, can u...? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle
I would like to see both DDR2 and DDR3 results :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JoeBar
I'm not expecting any gains from DDR3 as Hammer has never been bandwidth sensitive. And Deneb is not that big an improvement...
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)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
That was a point I made a long time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
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.
What review showed this? I thought they all showed about the same i.e ph920=q9300 and ph940=q9400Quote:
Originally Posted by rk7p5
Some people are too emotional to accept the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
More precisely:
Q9300~=P2 920~=Q6700
Q9450~=P2 940~=QX6800
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by ryboto
Here is a 280GTX instead of a 9800GTX or something...
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/a...2536/17984.png
You are such a fanboy:yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Hand picking screens and pick the worse of them. Rest of screens with better scores:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/a...2536/17982.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/a...2536/17983.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/a...2536/17985.png
Review with multiple resolutions per game:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-ph...review-test/17
PhenomII 940 better then core I7 920 @ Games ^^
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
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.
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?
Could you link to those pricecuts that AMD is making Intel do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
I haven't seen any extreme oc in those reviews yet. Here's one on cascade from www.purepc.pl:
Was I talking to you? I don't wanna have anything to do with these threads. I was talking directly to Shintai.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
I heard about them in one of the Phenom II reviews, don't recall what one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
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'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.Quote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
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: )Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
I guess there was no pricecuts.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=3492&p=20Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
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...spx?i=3492&p=4
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
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.
Here is GTX 260 Core 216:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
http://www.legitreviews.com/images/r.../Far_Cry_2.jpghttp://www.legitreviews.com/images/r..._of_Duty_4.jpg
http://www.legitreviews.com/images/r...is_Warhead.jpghttp://www.legitreviews.com/images/r.../Fallout_3.jpg
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/860/4/
:rolleyes:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zakiruz
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=208007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
seem people skip over this NB/IMC speed.Quote:
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.
phenom II doing good at 1920 x1200...?Quote:
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.
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://img114.imageshack.us/img114/g...png/1/w700.png
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.
more like the WCGE (worse coded game ever), imho GTA4 isn't representative for anything. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
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:
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
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:
Look where the Phenom 1 is in GTA4...Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
pcgh.de looks to be abit odd graphs..
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,67...ore_i7/?page=5
It honestly look bugged.
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?
see 4 yourself:Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=802&p=0
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3...warheadgn9.pnghttp://img296.imageshack.us/img296/5856/fc2lx0.png
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/3103/gta4kx6.pnghttp://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9317/ut3mc0.png
How about Left 4 Dead then?Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,67...ore_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:Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
edit: http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...omii940/15.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.
It means that trying to say anything about CPU performance when something is clearly GPU limited doesn't prove much of anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
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. Iīll include Deneb and Yorkfield as soon as possible, aren't in house yet ;-) http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=213642Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
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:
I just love this tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Bennett
yes this is very strange, a lot of different results... far cry 2 is one good example.
Easy, when i point the review I was talking about all games in that review, not only fear. Check-out the other games ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
The AMD roadmap is allways changing. 15 days ago and AMD made changes. And as far as I know not to be on roadmap donīt 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. Itīs H2 for the 6-core:
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...=7224&Itemid=1Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
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/43...omparison.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.Quote:
Originally Posted by rk7p5
But calling it 10-15% faster on avarage ipc wise is a bit off an overstatement.
I don't understand why you try to bash me on this :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
I speak sincerely.
Just compare results all over the net and you'll see the mess.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga