Phenom II Review Summaries.....

It's all about marketing.

AMD's reason to pick 790GX for reviewers and the Dragon platform is that it pretty much guarantees two things compared to FX:
-All GX have SB750 AFAIK, which is needed for ACC. AMD is pushing the P2 as a good overclocker.
-Lower price, which is very important for AMD today because of the competition.

The dragon platform is not only a platform but also a recommendation to customers, especially those who doesn't really know what to buy.
By choosing the dragon parts you are
1- less likely to go wrong (like OCing) if you're a noob, and
2- you buy AMD only parts.

It's the noobs that needs help to choose, not people here at XS.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mats

It's all about marketing.

AMD's reason to pick 790GX for reviewers and the Dragon platform is that it pretty much guarantees two things compared to FX:
-All GX have SB750 AFAIK, which is needed for ACC. AMD is pushing the P2 as a good overclocker.
-Lower price, which is very important for AMD today because of the competition.

The dragon platform is not only a platform but also a recommendation to customers, especially those who doesn't really know what to buy.
By choosing the dragon parts you are
1- less likely to go wrong (like OCing) if you're a noob, and
2- you buy AMD only parts.

It's the noobs that needs help to choose, not people here at XS.:D

---

ACC does not even work with Phenom II so that whole rant just went out the window.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbone8ty

aaaaaaaaand back on topic we have.....

toms hardware is also good

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...40,2114-8.html

i like the energy efficiency :-)

---

Well we were back OT for a second.... Sorry tbone :eh:

I'll make it brief, the one board I'd really like to see a 940BE on is the "DFI LP UT 790FX-M2R". That board on paper at least always looked like one of the best Phenom boards ever, with it's digital PWM section and overall rugged design I'm not sure PH1 was even worthy of it...

I know BroE and a few others have these boards. Hope they post some numbers for us... :up:

I appologize for the interuption, and now return you to your regularly scheduled thread... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daveburt714

Well we were back OT for a second.... Sorry tbone :eh:

I'll make it brief, the one board I'd really like to see a 940BE on is the "DFI LP UT 790FX-M2R". That board on paper at least always looked like one of the best Phenom boards ever, with it's digital PWM section and overall rugged design I'm not sure PH1 was even worthy of it...

I know BroE and a few others have these boards. Hope they post some numbers for us... :up:

I appologize for the interuption, and now return you to your regularly scheduled thread... ;)

---

Yes right you are Dave! I have been waiting for over a year to really see what this Board can do with a worthy Processor.............Finally!!!!!!:up:

I really think this thing will sing with the 940 BE and this Bios was Done by Oskar Wu himself so its gonna be Good..........Real Good

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben_Brown

ACC does not even work with Phenom II so that whole rant just went out the window.

---

Well when it does you need the SB750, after all it is the easiest way to overclock a K10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbone8ty

aaaaaaaaand back on topic we have.....

toms hardware is also good

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...40,2114-8.html

i like the energy efficiency :-)

---

Yes, their article was actually well balanced. I was surprised! :up:

What I'm really surprised about is none of these reviews touched on temps......With an intel chip you need to spend a small fortune in upgrading cooling just to OC the darn thing, and this is with Core 2 quads........I7's will likely accelerate global warming ( ok maybe an exxageration but they run freaking hot ) Meanwhile toss the stock heatpipe stock cooler on the AMD chip run it at 3.7 with .10 over stock and call it a day.....this changes the price/performance ratio even more so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chew*

What I'm really surprised about is none of these reviews touched on temps......With an intel chip you need to spend a small fortune in upgrading cooling just to OC the darn thing, and this is with Core 2 quads........I7's will likely accelerate global warming ( ok maybe an exxageration but they run freaking hot ) Meanwhile toss the stock heatpipe stock cooler on the AMD chip run it at 3.7 with .10 over stock and call it a day.....this changes the price/performance ratio even more so.

---

Cause the temps are not compare able, the method how and where its measured is to different.
P1 and P2 have one diode somewhere under the IHS and thats it.

C2D has one DTS per core on the hotest spot and Ci7 even has multiple DTS across each core on different hotspots and reports the highest temp form each core.

Also there are quite a few pehoms with a brocken/not claibrated diodes, showing less then ambient temp. ;)

the only decent way to make a comparison between this two would be to use a thermocouple and measure the temp on the IHS. Sure this wouldn't give you the core temps but its a lot better as the internal cpu diodes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

P1 and P2 have one diode somewhere under the IHS and thats it.

---

Yeah I'm surprised that they haven't changed the diode to TSI, yet. I guess it's a socket limitation.

Interesting, just read the Anandtech review - on page 10 he says he used the DFI DK790FXB to test OC and on page 11 it shows tests were done with MSI DKA790GX .........

Does that mean that for OC 790FX is better or am I just reading too much into it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russ_64

Interesting, just read the Anandtech review - on page 10 he says he used the DFI DK790FXB to test OC and on page 11 it shows tests were done with MSI DKA790GX .........

Does that mean that for OC 790FX is better or am I just reading too much into it?

---

Maybe not:
http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/...#content_start

Also, what I found out reading Anandtech's review was that the original Phenom used a CnQ that clocked down each core but now the new Phenom uses the same state for all the cores based on the fact that the thread is moved between cores all the time. Why, oh why did they do that? Really, the problem here isn't AMD's but Microsoft's. I understand that there were some bugs with this also but the idea was better than what they have now... (Which is also present in i7 if I remember correctly.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marten_larsson

Maybe not:
http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/...#content_start

Also, what I found out reading Anandtech's review was that the original Phenom used a CnQ that clocked down each core but now the new Phenom uses the same state for all the cores based on the fact that the thread is moved between cores all the time. Why, oh why did they do that? Really, the problem here isn't AMD's but Microsoft's. I understand that there were some bugs with this also but the idea was better than what they have now... (Which is also present in i7 if I remember correctly.)

---

I don't know if it is Microsoft's fault or is the AMD design flawed. I have a Turion X2 Ultra having that independant core technology, and when I'm playing a game that uses 1 core in total or sometimes 1.5, either one of the core or both is running at half its speed so the game is very choppy. To avoid this, I have to set affinity to one core only which fixes the core to maximum frequency.
I think there is still room for improvement on that design, especially in how Vista manages threads. So for now, since PII is not for mobile, AMD avoids the huge penalty hit with the technique. But the technology is still there if the core isnt used at maximum potential.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mats

Yeah I'm surprised that they haven't changed the diode to TSI, yet. I guess it's a socket limitation.

---

I really hope they make a similar temp/power monitoring approach in there next architecture like intel did with Ci7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrcmtl

I don't know if it is Microsoft's fault or is the AMD design flawed. I have a Turion X2 Ultra having that independant core technology, and when I'm playing a game that uses 1 core in total or sometimes 1.5, either one of the core or both is running at half its speed so the game is very choppy. To avoid this, I have to set affinity to one core only which fixes the core to maximum frequency.
I think there is still room for improvement on that design, especially in how Vista manages threads. So for now, since PII is not for mobile, AMD avoids the huge penalty hit with the technique. But the technology is still there if the core isnt used at maximum potential.

---

It seems to be a bit of both IMO. The way Phenom was supposed to work should theoretically be the most efficient but if it's buggy and too slow it's of course not all that good. I'm also kind of curious if this is something the new chipsets are going to bring (since it seems to have some sort of advanced individual clock calibration (hehe, ACC ;))). Would be great for efficiency!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

:confused:

I actually prefer it... it doesn't get in my way when it is turned off, and I can use it to play source games when I am in between video cards. :)



If you throw out price? Why would you do that?

It is one of the only two things that matters (three if you count quality) when making a purchase.

It makes quite a bit of sense to buy one... the more of us support AMD, the lower the hardware prices will be overall. Not to mention which, they offer very good value, which matters quite a bit in this economy, even to those with plenty of money to burn. They may be burning it now but soon it may be worth less than firewood... ;)

---

To some price doesn't enter into the equation, and contrary to popular belief not everyone is losing money in this economy, and when you take price, value and emotions out, it changes the whole perspective.


As far as which chip set is being used, when comparing it to the latest Intel cpu does it really matter? I mean will any chip set make up the difference in performance?:shrug:

Just my opinion: Menace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by menace2society

I own three AMD systems and a high end AMD graphics card, but truth be told, AMD's processors are not that competitive clock for clock.

---

That's an unqualified generalization. Competitive to what? i7? Core2? Which Core2? In what applications? What is the performance difference which would make it "competitive", in what applications, and against which parts?

Finally, how much of that performance differential will be noticeable to the end user? Now I'm not saying that the Phenom II doesn't trail i7 in terms of IPC. Clearly it does; we all knew it would, and AMD dropped the ball (several of them, actually) by underestimating their competitor after K8.

But at what point for most users will be that delta be noticeable? Are you really going to notice the difference between 100 and 125fps? If you do, then I commend you. Personally, I can't. Maybe an encoding app finishes in 2 mins rather than 2:30. I spend about .0001 percent of my encoding time encoding videos or music. In general, my computer spends a helluva lot more time waiting on me than I do on it.

Menace and the rest common sense points out the reason its competing with core 2 is because core 2 is gonna be the more selling line.

Not everyone has the money to buy the top of the line and maybe not everyones hurting in this hard economy (though who isn't bill collector's?). But you have to consider that not everyones in the enthusiast market and AMD will be able to make alot more money of the larger mainstream and performance crowd of consumers.

They need to make the money to get on their feet if their ever gonna compete better or even stay alive.

The origonal spirit of overclocking was to buy cheaper hardware and tweak it to perform as good as higher end more expensive hardware. Phenom 2 fits perfectly for this task.
so many people seem to have forgotten this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by menace2society

To some price doesn't enter into the equation...

---

And these people aren't AMDs target now are they? If you have to make up scenarios for Phenom 2s to fail in for you to prove your points you are proably in the wrong section of this site

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

You should add HardOCP's: We hate AMD so before we even get to the testing, here's why we think this product sucks. Nobody is even interested in Phenom II anymore. What a dud. (It's like they live in their own fragile, blue world.)

I think I'll block their domain out in my hosts file. *grumble*

---

So im not off my rocker by thinking there are so many things wrong with that review that I cant take it seriously? I posted on there calling out the flaws and Kyle responded, he seems like a good guy and had some valid points but his numbers dont seem to pan out in the end...

PII is a solid chip and offers good performance. Always have been AMD fan since the Tbird days when hey were racing to 1GHZ chips. PII can not compete against I7 but the platform as hole is much much more expensive. I am glad I can finally use an AMD chip again. Its been a while, snice the Opteron 165 days and my DFI Ultra-D.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daveburt714

Well we were back OT for a second.... Sorry tbone :eh:

I'll make it brief, the one board I'd really like to see a 940BE on is the "DFI LP UT 790FX-M2R". That board on paper at least always looked like one of the best Phenom boards ever, with it's digital PWM section and overall rugged design I'm not sure PH1 was even worthy of it...

I know BroE and a few others have these boards. Hope they post some numbers for us... :up:

I appologize for the interuption, and now return you to your regularly scheduled thread... ;)

---

I also have one, but I'm thinking to until the 945 comes out and then give it a real go, and since dfi has got their hands again on it's bios development and bug fixes I'll hope to see even better results

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck

The origonal spirit of overclocking was to buy cheaper hardware and tweak it to perform as good as higher end more expensive hardware. Phenom 2 fits perfectly for this task.
so many people seem to have forgotten this.

---

Kinda theres only 2 choices. Not like 6 with huge price differences between 1 and 6 and OCing 1 to 6's speed at 1/4 of the cost. AMD is marketing a BE edition for OCers while enabling cheaper chips that are limited. It's gone from something we do to get the best value to corporate strategy and marketing by them.

Barton 2500s and Barton Mobiles were great for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben_Brown

ACC does not even work with Phenom II so that whole rant just went out the window.

---

Give it a week or two, whenever they have a new ACC out I'm sure. AMD is coming out with all sorts of gaming software crap. I dunno good o'le BIOS works for me. Something about losing my OC because software crashes just seems kinda stupid. Then again I use to enjoy plugging away with my Biostar nforce2 and 2500+ bustin out a note pad and calculator. Software psh, I'm surprised they don't include something so all you have to do is push one button to OC your system or do they now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck

The origonal spirit of overclocking was to buy cheaper hardware and tweak it to perform as good as higher end more expensive hardware. Phenom 2 fits perfectly for this task.
so many people seem to have forgotten this.

---

By this definition P2 dont fits the original spirit at all. :p:

Back in the days you usualy bought the lowest bin and oced it as high as the highest bin, or higher. Same cpu.
With P2 you already got the highest bin, in fact there are only high binns out there right now. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by menace2society

To some price doesn't enter into the equation, and contrary to popular belief not everyone is losing money in this economy, and when you take price, value and emotions out, it changes the whole perspective.


As far as which chip set is being used, when comparing it to the latest Intel cpu does it really matter? I mean will any chip set make up the difference in performance?:shrug:

Just my opinion: Menace

---

Sorry for OT, but the only people not losing money in this economy are people that have invested in foreign currency, and even some of them are too. ;)

As the value of the dollar goes down, you are losing money whether you like it or not... regardless of how much you are earning, how much you have in the bank, or how much you have invested. There is no choice in the matter.

I for one have a VERY VERY solid job. Unlike about 95% of the country, I saw this downturn coming ten years ago, and unlike about 95% of the country, I have a solid grasp on just how bad it could get. Every penny could count towards a meal one day, whether you spend it on PC hardware, a new toothbrush, or food for your cat. :)



Also, when you take price, value, and emotions out, I see a bunch of hardware that all runs about the same speed in the applications I use it for, and has different different color logos on it.