PCPER.com: 5 GHZ+ Phenom II Overclock on Dry Ice, 6Ghz on LN2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Seriously, these guys are some kind of brotherhood. If someone post something "good", there is always one to backup him and say "Eh, you rule, and MAD more". If someone post something "bad" the brotherhood is right there to say "f*ck you Intel dog" in unison. Pfff get real guys, that behaviour is just retarded.

And no real info about perfomance or clocks yet :(

---

offtopic: I can'trecall atm which thread it was where Shintai got quite much proven wrong, then you and Hornet331 appreared to defend him before he left. Then some pages ago Shintai was being neutral, which is somewhat rare, at least as I see it. Also that same day Donnie betrayed the whole Intel gang by QFT'ing somewhat "pro-AMD" message. Besides his past contributions towards pro-Intel thinking have been sluggish and he indeed seems like a betrayer. Man, I could write a book about you people! :ROTF: No, I am not trying to be offensive, take it as joke instead. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dinos22

how many reviews have you seen of i7 priming a 920 at 4.2GHz on air

---

How many reviewer use prime to test a CPU?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

saaya said 4ghz+ only for good chips and 3,6ghz for pretty much every chip (on air).

---

Tony also said :

Quote:

---

Charles its 100% true, whether you like it or not AMD is matching i7 for clock speed...not sure on what performance is like at these clocks though but if clock speed is your thing Intel has a problem for sure.

---

Quote:

---

Now guys lets remember we have not seen facts and figures yet... but the clock speeds are true, Macci was in full control and I am sure there is more to come.

---

Quote:

---

saaya

Who told you they were hand picked samples? i read they were random picked and this is an average of what you can expect.

For those asking if I was there, i was not, lots of friends were though and we supplied hardware for the show...as such i was able to ask questions as this story was breaking.

---

So maybe AMD handpicked CPU even a trusty member like Tony seems to think that's not the case, but some people her clearly handpicked comments...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

And no real info about perfomance or clocks yet :(

---

There is a lots of info about performance and clock. We knw it can be worse performance than Phenom and we know it 3.6GHz primestable!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

How many reviewer use prime to test a CPU?


Tony also said :






So maybe AMD handpicked CPU even a trusty member like Tony seems to think that's not the case, but some people her clearly handpicked comments...


There is a lots of info about performance and clock. We knw it can be worse performance than Phenom and we know it 3.6GHz primestable!

---

The fifth quote is by Tony, not Saaya. On the other hand, if you believe the CPUs used were "randomly picked," then you must believe in flying saucers as well. That is just not the way these companies do business, neither would you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fragmasterMax

This is coming from the website, whose owner told me that overclocking is not only dangerous, but outdated, and prohibited. (i'll pull up the email if anyone wants to see)
I'm not saying it's not true, just that pcper is full of :banana::banana::banana::banana:ttt, and should probably be grouped in the inq/fud category of "news" :/

---

Ryan @ PCPER is a complete tool-bag. He changed his sites name long ago from amdmb.com to pcper.com because intel sent him a check. He's got about as much credibility as an objective journalist as a meth addict does.



btw... if this is all legit, good job to AMD for finally bringing some competition to Intel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

How many reviewer use prime to test a CPU?


Tony also said :






So maybe AMD handpicked CPU even a trusty member like Tony seems to think that's not the case, but some people her clearly handpicked comments...


There is a lots of info about performance and clock. We knw it can be worse performance than Phenom and we know it 3.6GHz primestable!

---

so its statement vs statement with no proof and the only thing that is verified, is a P2 on 3,6ghz (PP/ES).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

The fifth quote is by Tony, not Saaya. On the other hand, if you believe the CPUs used were "randomly picked," then you must believe in flying saucers as well. That is just not the way these companies do business, neither would you.

---

The fifth quote is Tony to Saaya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

so its statement vs statement with no proof and the only thing that is verified, is a P2 on 3,6ghz (PP/ES).

---

Not statement versus statement.
Sayaa post two time and never post again after Tony interjected him. Moreover Sayaa also said numbers were true. So if your point it's to discuss the handpicked fact Sayaa also stated :

Quote:

---

their numbers are true, that was a way handpicked sample tho... then again, all the high core i7 numbers weve seen are with handpicked cpus as well...

---

We all seem to be getting a little hot under the collar here...lets all calm down for a few weeks and then we will all see where the CPU's clock to.

As far as i know there is strict NDA covering what the CPU's actually clocked to at the show, i am under NDA so i can't tell you either. All I can say is the CPU's were not specifically tested to do 6GHZ (or anything else for that matter), the fact they look to have done i think is a bonus, if they had hit 5.7GHZ would we still be arguing about it here....i think so.

I will try and get a CPU, even then though im under NDA so any info i bring will have to be passed thru AMD first...its just the way it works and we all have to live with it.

If you are asking whether i feel retail CPU's will act like this...I think so yes

AMD would not have put on the show and stood the expense of flying people in just to gain hype off one batch only to be shot down with the next...i don't think they will make that mistake again ;)


Edit...I bought my own BE9850 and hit 3.6GHZ with it, AMD in conversation had said i may hit 3.2 or so with it....going by this could the Phenom2 hit 7GHZ on LN2...LOL

you never know ;)

After dropping the bombshell last week, more details about AMD’s exciting fight back are slowly coming to life. Several e-tailers decided to get under the limelight and listed pricing of upcoming Phenom II processors.
As well all know, the Phenom II will be launched on the first day of CES 2009 (January 9, 2009), and the launch models are 920 (2.8 GHz) and 940 Black Edition (3.0 GHz). According to Australian website Austincomputers, the price of Phenom II 940 Black Edition is set at 532.40 Australian dollars (€264/US$342). It does not stop there - TDshop.it , Italian e-tailer who listed prices for both Phenom II 920 and 940. According to Italian store, price of 920 is set at 251 Euro, while 940 will set you back for 299 Euro.
As you probably know, Sales Tax/VAT in EUrozone is extremely high, in the range of 15%+. For instance, Croatia has 22% and that isn’t the highest on the continent. Thus, if we deduct VAT from that Italian store, we get following:

* AMD Phenom II 920 = €245 = US$318
* AMD Phenom II 940 = €205 = US$266

There you have it. Now, we can get clearer picture at the cost of upcoming 45nm processors from AMD. When you calculate the price of the rest of the platform, a cool but silent overclocking system for 4.0 GHz clock should probably be made of these components:

* AMD Phenom II 940 Black Edition - $320
* Noctua NH-C12P – $65
* DFI LANParty 790GX-M2RS - $150
* Corsair Dominator 4GB PC2-8500 - $110 ($70 after $40 MIR)
* Corsair CMPSU-1000HX modular power supply - $250

Overall, $840 without graphics, storage and the case. Not bad for a 4.0 GHz system.

http://theovalich.wordpress.com/2008...less-than-400/

I know a lot of people are under NDA but can anyone give a hint if this price estimate is close to the real retail value in USD$

Tony worded it carefully... "AMD is matching i7 for clock speed" and "but if clock speed is your thing", in other words he's talking about clocks only but not performance per clock. :rolleyes:

As for the prices, as I've predicted before, 940's competitor would be Q9550 and (new addition) the 920's competitor would be Q9400. Based on Shanghai benchmarks like Lavalys, 3ds Max 2009 and Cinebench 10. The early one from OCP forum seems to be buggy. :bsod:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

The fifth quote is Tony to Saaya.


Not statement versus statement.
Sayaa post two time and never post again after Tony interjected him. Moreover Sayaa also said numbers were true. So if your point it's to discuss the handpicked fact Sayaa also stated :

---

So if someone dont reply that automatically mean his arguments is invalide? :rofl:

Btw. that statement of saaya is also wrong, we see higher clocks on retail parts of Ci7 then intel showed us. So if they where handpicked, intel made sure they only picked "avarage ones". :yepp:

Just in... AMD Phenom II Bring Us No Exciting Improvements

http://en.expreview.com/img/2008/11/...re_phenom2.jpg

The 3DMark CPU score does tell us a bit, but why compare to Q9400 and Q9300 only? And are those integrated graphics gaming scores? :shrug:

I've bitten my tongue for long enough, and after losing a good hour of my life to read the mindless bashing that occuring in this thread, i can do it no more.

If the AMD chips are even within 10% of Intel's Chips, i for one call it a severe bonus to all of us. Not just the benchmarkers. Any competition is a good thing in the Chip market, Intel have it all their own way and thats a bad thing for prices. I realise this is XS, but its the best source for the "lower level" overclocker of information about the new lines companies bring out. I'm not a severe clocker any more, i clock to a degree, but not hardcore, and i'm exactley the same as 90% of the enthusiasts out there, many of whom want, nay NEED the competition this could bring. Lower prices, better products due to the competition that brings, all of which adds up to a massive plus for all of us.

Regardless of the clocks, and regardless of your "fanboy alliances" i think everybody should be excited about this news, at the end of the day it will cause progress and innovation which will benefit all of us.

I did have a good chuckle at the "No CPU-Z, it didnt happen" comment, i mean what kind of moron posts something as idiotic and blind as that. I've heard the local hospital to you has an offer on right now, free brain transplant, so that one in your arse can finally make it to your head... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghostbuster

Just in... AMD Phenom II Bring Us No Exciting Improvements

http://en.expreview.com/img/2008/11/...re_phenom2.jpg

The 3DMark CPU score does tell us a bit, but why compare to Q9400 and Q9300 only? And are those integrated graphics gaming scores? :shrug:

---

GPU test, Q9300 and Q9400 are the only quads Deneb can beat. Simple as that. :up:

You are all diseased - George Carlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghostbuster

Just in... AMD Phenom II Bring Us No Exciting Improvements

http://en.expreview.com/img/2008/11/...re_phenom2.jpg

The 3DMark CPU score does tell us a bit, but why compare to Q9400 and Q9300 only? And are those integrated graphics gaming scores? :shrug:

---

seems like it...:shrug:

in 3dmark 06 cpu test a 940 is ~10% faster then a Q9400 and best case is lost planet with ~40%.

There is not enough data to make anything out of this chart... 40% difference could mean just a few fps if the res is high enough. (e.g. P2 940 scores 20fps and Q9400 12fps) :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

GPU test, Q9300 and Q9400 are the only quads Deneb can beat. Simple as that. :up:

---

Or maybe they will be in same price range :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n!Cola

Or maybe they will be in same price range :rolleyes:

---

Deneb 940 for 299-339 USD? :rolleyes:

Little disappointing as Q9400 is only 2,66ghz (3dmark isn't everything though)
DDR3 won't do miracles either. Well atleast they can clock higher than agenas :rolleyes:

Now let's wait for pricing info ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

offtopic: I can'trecall atm which thread it was where Shintai got quite much proven wrong, then you and Hornet331 appreared to defend him before he left. Then some pages ago Shintai was being neutral, which is somewhat rare, at least as I see it. Also that same day Donnie betrayed the whole Intel gang by QFT'ing somewhat "pro-AMD" message. Besides his past contributions towards pro-Intel thinking have been sluggish and he indeed seems like a betrayer. Man, I could write a book about you people! :ROTF: No, I am not trying to be offensive, take it as joke instead. :up:

---

Phenom II seems to have what Phenom 1 didn't. Some folks talk a good talk but little else, I back my words with my wallet. I'd said many times if AMD had something worth buying (IMHO) I'd buy it. Phenom II hasn't disappointed yet! If you think I'm the only one (folks labeled as Intel Fans) looking at Phenom II as my next possible purchase, you and others are fooling yourselves.

I said right off the top I believed most of the Phenom II overclocks. Now the Price comes into play. My favorite line is, "I'm a Fanboy of my wallet, not Intel's or AMD's". Company I don't like (hate is too strong)? nVidia:down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P-Dub

I've bitten my tongue for long enough, and after losing a good hour of my life to read the mindless bashing that occuring in this thread, i can do it no more.

If the AMD chips are even within 10% of Intel's Chips, i for one call it a severe bonus to all of us. Not just the benchmarkers. Any competition is a good thing in the Chip market, Intel have it all their own way and thats a bad thing for prices. I realise this is XS, but its the best source for the "lower level" overclocker of information about the new lines companies bring out. I'm not a severe clocker any more, i clock to a degree, but not hardcore, and i'm exactley the same as 90% of the enthusiasts out there, many of whom want, nay NEED the competition this could bring. Lower prices, better products due to the competition that brings, all of which adds up to a massive plus for all of us.

Regardless of the clocks, and regardless of your "fanboy alliances" i think everybody should be excited about this news, at the end of the day it will cause progress and innovation which will benefit all of us.

I did have a good chuckle at the "No CPU-Z, it didnt happen" comment, i mean what kind of moron posts something as idiotic and blind as that. I've heard the local hospital to you has an offer on right now, free brain transplant, so that one in your arse can finally make it to your head... :)

---

:up::up::up:

Damn well said!

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/img/200...950/quake4.jpg


Does this make sense? Quake 4 is dependent on clockspeed, and somehow if you bench it like SharkyExtreme, the Agenas win per-clock. WEIRD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

seems like it...:shrug:

in 3dmark 06 cpu test a 940 is ~10% faster then a Q9400 and best case is lost planet with ~40%.

There is not enough data to make anything out of this chart... 40% difference could mean just a few fps if the res is high enough. (e.g. P2 940 scores 20fps and Q9400 12fps) :shrug:

---

Look at the comments on the bottom of the page?

Quote:

---

rehsabee Says:

November 26th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
A bit deceptive. I believe the Lost Planet, Quake and UT3 gaming figures shown are for AMD’s integrated graphics performance and we all know how bad is Intel’s own integrated graphics. The 3DMark CPU score is a good indicator of actual CPU speed.

---

Yes, I can't wait for legit tests:up: Believing the overclock is one thing, going along with stuff like this, is a stretch:rolleyes: Oh and I believe what saaya said:D

lol! I don't think the G45 can run any game at framerates that close, though. :P


And if it was 790GX vs G45, UT3 should have been the worst for G45 instead, with Quake 4 being okay.

So roughly a 3Ghz 45nm Phenom 2 equals a 2.75Ghz 6MB 45nm Core 2. Or about clock for clock for a 65nm Core 2. Not bad. But a Q9550 is above and beyond.

And ye for testing IGPs...its certainly not the same GPUs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

So roughly a 3Ghz 45nm Phenom 2 equals a 2.75Ghz 6MB 45nm Core 2. Or about clock for clock for a 65nm Core 2. But a Q9550 is above and beyond.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Looks like 2008 will be another year with complete nVidia dominance.

---

-> ;)

That chart shows nothing. Taking those conclusions from there is like "Nvidia complete dominance in 2008".We need much more solid informatiton to say something like that.