AMD Phenom II 920 & 940 Full Review

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-25-2008, 03:56 PM
OverClocker_gr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiridum

yeah that was quite funny, but it is prolly because of the HT

At far cry 2 disabling HT gave me a gain of 3-5 fps ,but it still slower than the q9550 + p2 940
12-25-2008, 03:57 PM
Dagalidis

The Nr.1 reason for me to move on Intel side was the Gaming Performance.
From what i've seen, right now, AMD is Back on Game Factory....:D
12-25-2008, 03:57 PM
accord99

OverClocker_gr, any chance you could make measurements of the system power usage of the tested systems?
12-25-2008, 03:58 PM
Tiridum

Since the reviewers are online :)

Why did you perform so many "not representational" synthetic benchmarks?
12-25-2008, 03:59 PM
gallag

Yet another AMD product has been over hyped.
12-25-2008, 04:00 PM
azraeel101

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverClocker_gr

indeed,this was very weird,so i switch to another mobo,vga and cpu because i thought that something was wrong.
Nothing changed at the performance.

Thanks for the confirmation.. May I suggest for future reviews you could use Team Fortress 2 and GTA4, these 2 are the most CPU bound games I've ever bought.. I don't have a chance in GTA4 multiplayer even at the lowest settings because my old X2 chokes and I get like10-15 fps, while I can play Crysis Warhead and get 30 fps with gamer settings in 1680*1050.

So yea, if I would be running Sandra and Everest benches all day on my computer I would sell a kidney and get an i7, but the only programs that are stressfull for my CPU are games so the Phenom II looks like the better option by far considering price/performance/watt/OC potential. :D
12-25-2008, 04:01 PM
OverClocker_gr

Quote:

Originally Posted by accord99

OverClocker_gr, any chance you could make measurements of the system power usage of the tested systems?

i think that its possible but i m not making any promises
12-25-2008, 04:02 PM
RaZz!

Quote:

Originally Posted by azraeel101

I only care about the winrar and gaming tests since the synthetic benchmarks are completely useless to me, and what amused me was how at 1280*1024 the i7 pwns but at 1680*1050 they choke and PhenomII/Q9550 take the lead.. I mean, who gonna spend a :banana::banana::banana::banana:load of money on a i7 platform and game at 1280*1024?? :confused:

well, i'd say in 1280x1024 the game is cpu-limited, but in 1680x1050 it becomes gpu-limited.

but your point is still valid: why such a dramatic decrease in performance. the i7 is often slower than a penryn or phenom. i7's raw power is amazing, but in games these "muscles" seem to be negligible. i have no idea why.

whatever, i'm not impressed by the first benches of deneb as well :( i was really hoping for amd to be on par with the penryns (clock for clock). unfortunately deneb struggles to catch up with the kentsfields clock for clock. now it really depends on the prices.
any news on deneb's power consumption and temps?
12-25-2008, 04:02 PM
Sly Fox

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagalidis

The Nr.1 reason for me to move on Intel side was the Gaming Performance.
From what i've seen, right now, AMD is Back on Game Factory....:D

Yea, I remember some ads back in the socket 754 days from AMD targeting gamers specifically. That's always kinda stuck with me, that they do sometimes consciously target the gaming sector. Whereas Intel goes for the "all-around" crown mostly.

It seems that it's pretty clear at this point that i7 is the CPU to get for raw performance. But it also appears Phenom II will be fairly attractive for gaming and price. And honestly, the backwards compatibility is huge. Makes the Phenom adopters very happy I bet.
12-25-2008, 04:03 PM
accord99

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverClocker_gr

i think that its possible but i m not making any promises

Thanks, there's been a few early benches and your review now that provides some idea of the performance of the PhII but as of yet, nobody has done power measurements (if you exclude the Shanghai server measurements).
12-25-2008, 04:04 PM
Extelleron

Sadly it looks like, when overclocking is taken into account at least, a Q6600 will still be a better CPU than the Phenom II 940 and likely be $100 cheaper. Deneb doesn't come close to matching Yorkfield clock for clock and it does not match Kentsfield per clock either. A 3.6GHz Q6600 will be more than competitive with a 3.6-3.8GHz Phenom II 940.
12-25-2008, 04:06 PM
OverClocker_gr

Quote:

Originally Posted by azraeel101

Thanks for the confirmation.. May I suggest for future reviews you could use Team Fortress 2 and GTA4, these 2 are the most CPU bound games I've ever bought.. I don't have a chance in GTA4 multiplayer even at the lowest settings because my old X2 chokes and I get like10-15 fps, while I can play Crysis Warhead and get 30 fps with gamer settings in 1680*1050.

So yea, if I would be running Sandra and Everest benches all day on my computer I would sell a kidney and get an i7, but the only programs that are stressfull for my CPU are games so the Phenom II looks like the better option by far considering price/performance/watt/OC potential. :D

Thanx for your suggestions.I ll keep them in my mind ;)

At the 1680*1050 res we used MAX details except AA and AF.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiridum

Since the reviewers are online :)

Why did you perform so many "not representational" synthetic benchmarks?

Any suggestions for future reviews?

Thanx :)
12-25-2008, 04:07 PM
accord99

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly Fox

It seems that it's pretty clear at this point that i7 is the CPU to get for raw performance. But it also appears Phenom II will be fairly attractive for gaming and price. And honestly, the backwards compatibility is huge. Makes the Phenom adopters very happy I bet.

Why? I mean they could have gone Intel C2Q and already have the same or better performance in games. And given the competitive situation of the last 2.5 years and the incompatible nature of many Socket AM2s, I doubt the upgrade market is particularly large. Meanwhile, people who went with Intel aren't going to bother with at best a lateral upgrade.
12-25-2008, 04:07 PM
demonkevy666

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaZz!

well, i'd say in 1280x1024 the game is cpu-limited, but in 1680x1050 it becomes gpu-limited.

but your point is still valid: why such a dramatic decrease in performance. the i7 is often slower than a penryn or phenom. i7's raw power is amazing, but in games these "muscles" seem to be negligible. i have no idea why.

whatever, i'm not impressed by the first benches of deneb as well :( i was really hoping for amd to be on par with the penryns (clock for clock). unfortunately deneb struggles to catch up with the kentsfields clock for clock. now it really depends on the prices.
any news on deneb's power consumption and temps?

first of let me say all you forget to take into acount that the nb is sitting lower then current 9850 and 9950 and can be over clocked. and when you doo 200mhz of it can eqaul anywhere form .0.4-3% more performance

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly Fox

Yea, I remember some ads back in the socket 754 days from AMD targeting gamers specifically. That's always kinda stuck with me, that they do sometimes consciously target the gaming sector. Whereas Intel goes for the "all-around" crown mostly.

It seems that it's pretty clear at this point that i7 is the CPU to get for raw performance. But it also appears Phenom II will be fairly attractive for gaming and price. And honestly, the backwards compatibility is huge. Makes the Phenom adopters very happy I bet.

Sure dose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Extelleron

Sadly it looks like, when overclocking is taken into account at least, a Q6600 will still be a better deal than the Phenom II 940. Deneb doesn't come close to matching Yorkfield clock for clock and it does not match Kentsfield per clock either. A 3.6GHz Q6600 will be more than competitive with a 3.6-3.8GHz Phenom II 940.

read above.
12-25-2008, 04:07 PM
amdcian

Very, very disappointed, if this review is dependable :shakes:

Anyway, I want to see a review only with AMD family processors. I wonder how percent Deneb can outperform Agena clock-to-clock :yepp:
12-25-2008, 04:09 PM
Spacemaster

I just want to say that I expect this one, AMD is not better of concurrence but now is in the game, again. Let wait better tests with OC comparisions, for the final conclusion :)
12-25-2008, 04:09 PM
ownage

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverClocker_gr

Any suggestions for future reviews?

Encoding 2 minutes of a1080P video using H.264 codec and measure the encoding time for each CPU.
12-25-2008, 04:11 PM
OverClocker_gr

Quote:

Originally Posted by amdcian

Very, very disappointed, if this review is dependable :shakes:

If you want i can send you all the images with the test but its around 100mb
12-25-2008, 04:12 PM
Macadamia

If you can test Cinebench 10 with 64-bit. It's both faster on Phenoms and C2Qs, but you'll probably see a difference.
12-25-2008, 04:14 PM
Tiridum

Quote:

Originally Posted by OverClocker_gr

Any suggestions for future reviews?

Thanx :)

- Sysmark/PCmark (i think i am the only one who likes it)
- 3dx max and photoshop
- encoding (x264,divx and mp3)

and just for kick, always include superpi :D
12-25-2008, 04:15 PM
Spacemaster

Quote:

Originally Posted by ownage

Encoding 2 minutes of a1080P video using H.264 codec and measure the encoding time for each CPU.

Divx encodng, photoshop, BLENDER is ok test ...
12-25-2008, 04:15 PM
Zucker2k

Quote:

Originally Posted by accord99

Why? I mean they could have gone Intel C2Q and already have the same or better performance in games. And given the competitive situation of the last 2.5 years and the incompatible nature of many Socket AM2s, I doubt the upgrade market is particularly large. Meanwhile, people who went with Intel aren't going to bother with at best a lateral upgrade.

Why do that, when you can wait 2 years for a Q6600 performance? :cool:
12-25-2008, 04:15 PM
Extelleron

Quote:

Originally Posted by demonkevy666

first of let me say all you forget to take into acount that the nb is sitting lower then current 9850 and 9950 and can be over clocked. and when you doo 200mhz of it can eqaul anywhere form .0.4-3% more performance

Sure dose.

read above.

The NB speed is going to affect performance by a few % at most. That's not going to be a factor. Overclocking the FSB on the Qxxx CPUs or the uncore on the i7 CPUs will improve performance as well, so if you are going to factor in OCing the PII 940's NB, you need to factor in overclocking the other CPUs as well.

The bottom line, that you really can't refute with the data that we have: A $180, 2 year old Q6600 that is about to reach EOL will match or beat the $250-300 Phenom II 940 when both are overclocked, and not even be that far behind at stock speeds. A $320 Q9550 will beat the PII 940 easily, at stock and especially when overclocked.
12-25-2008, 04:16 PM
Dagalidis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Extelleron

Sadly it looks like, when overclocking is taken into account at least, a Q6600 will still be a better CPU than the Phenom II 940 and likely be $100 cheaper. Deneb doesn't come close to matching Yorkfield clock for clock and it does not match Kentsfield per clock either. A 3.6GHz Q6600 will be more than competitive with a 3.6-3.8GHz Phenom II 940.

I think you make a BIG mistake here my friend...
PII with IMC is Better from Q6600...... FAR FAR BETTER .... believe me.
IMC is a miracle when you see the response on Desktop apps.
I have my Q6600 at 3.6Ghz for 24/7 use but my old OPTERON 165 running on 2.6 GHz has SUPERIOR Response.

I believe AM3 & DDR3 will be more competive on i7 and much much cheaper.:up:
12-25-2008, 04:17 PM
demonkevy666

q6600 will rise in price since it's not being manufactured any more.
the demand for that chip will always be high.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page