I think that GA-EX58-UD3R doesn't support SLI Hornet331 and that GA-EX58-UD4P PCI-E configuration is 16x+16x+8x, and GA-EX58-DS4 is 16X+8x+8x.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Printable View
I think that GA-EX58-UD3R doesn't support SLI Hornet331 and that GA-EX58-UD4P PCI-E configuration is 16x+16x+8x, and GA-EX58-DS4 is 16X+8x+8x.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Funny that the ones that keep on whining about how disappointed they are or how they were hoping for a better showing from AMD are the same ones that were telling us to not believe the hype, seems like they couldn't take their own advice :rolleyes: :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing hypocrites :shakes:
QFT, right on. :clap::clap::clap::up:Quote:
Originally Posted by LowRun
I said here multiple times not to believe the hype and get real. I'm not disappointed at all, this is just as expected. So don't generalize.Quote:
Originally Posted by LowRun
maybe i mixed some things up, but thats not the point. THe point was that P55 boards will easly will be under 150€ even less. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
Just delete this thread already.
Its about PII reviews and nothing else.
FFS.
I think PHII is about what all of us expected. Its just that some of us looked forward to PHII's good points and some looked forward to PHII's weak points.
I highly doubt you can run an i7 with two phases. Maybe if you do something exotic in the cooling solution. Also, more phases translates to less time each phase is on for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
lol :rofl::ROTF: it seems that wayQuote:
Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck
im happy with phenom II. i wasn't looking for it to beat intel out at anything and really i wouldn't care if it did anyway, just maybe then the trolls would disappear. performance of phenom I to phenom II is all that mattered to me and phenom II destroyed the original phenom. the new cool and quiet and power consumption are some nice key points. not to mention how well it can overclock. im overclocking until when i don't like the temps anymore, not the max of the chip. with how cool it runs and the heat seems to scale well when it overclocks im really happy with it.
How can you tell what THE temp is when more than one reviewer said AMD's temp sensor/probe didn't work right?Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
hmmmm what does that have to do with my post? or are we just listing what we don't like about phenom II now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
It all depends on your expectations of course. I was skeptical at first but was then (stupidly, in hindsight) caught up in all the hype about easy 4GHz+ overclocks on air and Yorkfield levels of IPC, when in reality it requires effort to get high 3GHz overclocks and struggles to match Kentsfield per clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
All in all I guess I am slightly disappointed in PII after all the hype, but looking at the bigger picture it really ain't that bad, its a respectable CPU at a good price, and I am glad that AMD users finally have a decent CPU that has good performance, overclocking and power consumption. If nothing else it will bring increased competition to the market and I'm looking forward to Intel cutting Yorkfield prices in response.
Sorry Donnie, but this post has been reported, you just dont know when to lay off. Give it a break, pleaseQuote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
honestly , i didn't think id ever defend the guy, but what about his post was offensive? i also read about temp sensor issues, am i to be reported also?Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoled
I don't see anything wrong with that post.... :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoled
Doesn't current SuperMicro boards that support older Clovertons have like 4 phases? And are still rock stable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
There doesn't need to be anything wrong with the post, that is how biased some people are, hopefully the Mods in this forum won't pander to this sort of irrationality.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] riptide
well some people also don't read the thread name when it says phenom II review thread. not phenom II flame thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
People are discussing what the reviews show, but once again the fanboys are demanding that ONLY gushing praise of AMD be allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
You have the AMD Sanctuary for that sort of poor carry on.
pls let us know why you think they are pretty far behind intel boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Klarko
except for the fact that you have 1001 of the same boards with just another name and they use some fancy colors and cooling rubbish there is nothing more an intel board is able to provide, actually rather the opposite, try to find some intel boards that have such high feature set like 790f - fx and gx for that pricepoint.
now if they would only add some cpu´s that are actually in the same price range would be added value for the review.......Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
its fine if people discuss it it just seems there are a few people that only have negative things to say, don't really know much about the topic and seem to just flamebait people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
q9300 has the same price
A perverse interpretation of what has happened in this thread, unless you were referring to the posts by Mongoled.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
What video card did they use and resolutions did they test the gaming at?Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
q9300 price wise would be a competitor against PII 920 no? The PII 940 is priced to compete with q9400.Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
q9300=$245
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115043
q9400=$270
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115131
PII 920=$235
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103472
pII 940=$275
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103471
Hard to tell there, ( I see some 4850/4870 in there) but major discrepancy to me 4gb for the AM2 and S775 (why DDR3 ?) and 3gb for the I7... too bad they didn't compare socket 775 with the same ram as the AM2 at the same speeds...
Hope MAS can shed a light here
same here in main EU. (NL)Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
P2 920 costs 211eur
P2 940 costs 236eur
Q9300 costs 204eur
Q9400 costs 240eur
that was also the original competition goal, price already down from early orders and available for direct delivery.
indeed not all reviews have the same base. waiting for the madshrimps review :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
i have seen a few different tests. for games having ddr3 over ddr2 typically does nothing unless it is memory intensive then it can make a big deal. i believe there was a bench with far cry 2 and one had a q9650 with ddr2 and one with ddr3. the ddr3 one got about 5 more frames. for other applications the ram might make a difference but its nice to see that when am3 comes along phenom II can only get better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
1024*768, HD4870Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
The Q9300 is a discontinued product.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
Indeed let's hope AMD can bring good ram speeds (at least 1600mhz with tight timings) with the DDR3 boards... it would have been easier to interpret if the parts used were sort of alike... 4gb of that corsair ram can cost as much as the CPU alone... also I have no clue how fast the ram actually ran and how them points were calculated (but I'm :banana::banana::banana::banana:e in graphs anyway lol)...
Go go MAS do some translating for us plz
Yep even 150Ws, plus you also see OEM boards like HP, Dell etc with it. (4 that is).Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] riptide
I have high hopes for something like this in the future:
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...gratedGMCH.jpg
Number of phases means nothing once you get to 4+ really, its more about quality.
How many phases do GPUs use? 8800GT is 2 phases for example...Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Boards like P5N-E SLi is 3 phases, yet it could run prescott, quads etc. Not even a heatsink needed...
Regardless, they will have another chip in that $250 slot that will compete with PII 920 or whatever other chip Amd puts in the $250 slot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Excel table is a huge addition thx :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
It's posts like these that are quite away from topic. And I agree to those saying some people here are only focusing on the negative with the PII. And some are exaggerating the positive or negative. And some rather strange comparisons and conclusions have been made. (Like the ones saying most people run 1024x768 but still a PII wouldn't be enough for them. That's just crazy talk.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
And what about the others?:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] riptide
Anyway, my PhII will arrive 13th if things go well along with some nice Exceleram DDR1150 kit:up: Hell yeah, Im gonna camp that door:shocked:
Still I got to ready up my motherboard with over the top heat sinks, but I dont want the previous :banana::banana::banana::banana: happen to me again:shakes:
You talked about temps and overclocking. I asked how would you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
@Mongoled, this is NOT the AMDZZone or AMD.com:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoled
Sorry Donnie, but this post has been reported, you just dont know when to lay off. Give it a break, please
[XC] riptide==I don't see anything wrong with that post....
Lay off means lie, spin and only positive words on behalf of AMD:up:
Keep me posted how those excellerams do mate, I'm loving every minute of my 4gb DDR3 kit, not very Oc'able but for 100 euros 1600Mhz with C9 is pretty amasingQuote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
Would you please stop trying to derail this threadQuote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
See? This is exactly why nobody takes these threads seriously. People come in here and ask straight up questions and instead of getting a simple answer they get everything but. It's always got to be about "dreailing threads" or "fanboi's", or "wah wah wah everybody is attacking", or pestering the mods over nothing...that is what a trainwreck of thread derailment really is.Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoled
Donnie is right. It's the same thing in every one of these threads like this.
I'll ask it straight up...again...
What is the deal with the temp sensors? Is it software or is it the hardware?
Now, somebody can answer that, or this thread can keep getting derailed and will most probably get locked and run off the page. That's what happens to 98% of them.
There is a lots of people who provide informations in this thread and discuss about PhII reviews.
There is a bunch of people who speak about i7 which is relevant for me because it's an existing product so you can compare.
There is a bunch of people who speak about i5 which is irrelevent for me because it's a far from released product.
There is a bunch of people who use word like "fanboy". I don"t know what they want :shrug:
There is one guy who speak about AMD derailing thread in order to push mod to close it.
You wouldlove for this thread to die it seems. This thread is about reviews of the new amd cpu.. Questions about sensors can be asked in one of the million other amd threads that you alleaddy derailedQuote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
This kit was 100~110 Euro. There ain't a lot of information about it on the net, just one review and a very few user 'reviews' but they seem to hit DDR1200 without too much issues:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
Since PhII doesnt suffer from HTT's I could hopefully achieve HTT of 300 with the RAM running 2:1 so I wont suffer from those weird DDR1066 mode timings:D
Button was used to hopefully stop your endless ranting:shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
Please stick to the topic
Cooper,
Completely OT, but the Kitty in your avatar is very cute. :)
If anyone is still interested:
small review done by me: -->LINK<--
Includes apps mostly not used by anyone else. Comparing Phenom 9950 with Phenom II 940BE at exactly same settings!
Random Retail chip by a member of my main forum on Stock Cooler.
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/9685/36stressuk5.jpgQuote:
ok thouyght id try the multiplier first!
stock volts, not changed ANYTHING but multi, rock solid stable after 7hours+
more to come!
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/7052/38stressug1.jpgQuote:
been stressing at 3.8Ghz as i said small voltage increase but temps still only at 30-31C lol this is only using multiplier and volts now! there is no doubt the stock cooler wud allow you to get to here with reasonable temps!
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...php?t=17962258
What about... no one knows?Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
Just reading though this thread & what a joke from the Usual Suspects[great movie]
This a enthusiasts forum.
I don't care about what res the avg joe runs as im not using it.
I don't care about what cpu the avg joe runs as im not using it.
I do care if the avg joe is being scammed or ripped off because we should all care because we are not experts in all areas & are avg joe under those circumstances.
I don't care about AMD/Intel's market share & only that they both exists so i can buy their products and besides price hiking if one goes under i don't give damn as it aint like the CPU/GfX around the world will suddenly DIE with the company it was made from.
Thanks for the review :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
That may be true but it helps to understand the position of a company vs. spewing ignorant stuff like "OMG WHY DOESN'T AMD JUST RELEASE A CPU THAT BEATS NEHALEM". Engineering takes time, and it's a wonder that AMD is even coming close to keeping up, considering that Penryn's CPU core size is 40% larger than Shanghai's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
Exactly.I was already talking about the dedicated core logic area in Deneb/Shanghai and Nehalem designs.Nehalem's core takes up 24.4mm2(without L2) while Shanghai's core takes up 15.3mm2.This is approx. 60% difference,a huge one.Four i7 cores stand at 97.6mm2 so for a proper and logical comparison (from the dedicated core logic POV) we would need an Istanbul whose 6 cores will take up approx. 91.3mm2.Still it's a bit lower than Nehalem's total size for cores,but close enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
And yes,it's easier to add cores than to design super complex SMT like features,especially if you are AMD in the times of global economical distress and with debt company have to pay.So they opted for smaller core sizes and slightly improved uarchitecture that is still a good 10% faster per clock than Agena(in client type of apps,server types gain even more),over a K10 that would be even more complicated to design and probably more late.That's why we will have Bulldozer ,a new design,at later date(supposedly nothing like K8/K10).
I really wonder if they will manage to launch Istanbul in Q3 or Q4 this year.It would be great if they did,50% more cores in same TDP/ACP envelopes will surely be felt,especially in MT applications.
Where do you have the data about core size in mm^2 ?
They were mentioned in couple of reviews on the web.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
You know, google is your frient (or yahoo if you prefer).
Good place to start is http://www.chip-architect.com/ .... (older products)
PS. It's time to change you bottom quote :)
Thats fine but should have its own thread as i came here to see the in's & out of Phenom2 & most of what i see is talk about AMD & Intel themselves & possible futures of them & not about the CPU that is before us which is an enthusiast CPU which does not matter what the avg joe thinks of it because they will not be buying chips in the class/price range bracket anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
Here you go:Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
http://chip-architect.com/news/Shanghai_Nehalem.jpg
And some very interesting numbers from previous designs(both AMD and intel):
http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2...us_Images.html
Increased core size is also the result of Intel using fewer layers than AMD ( 9 vs 11 ).That also impacts density per mm^2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==
Did anyone notice that they were using Three GTX 280 OC in Tri-SLI ?
It might be that Intel processors scale better with more GPU power. So why some people here are bashing hardocp when they don't have proof that shows otherwise ?
Interesting is something else in this review:
Deneb: 2 GB DDR2 800
Core2: 4 GB DDR3 1600
i7: 6 GB DDR3 1600
Do you call this a fair comparison? I'm afraid I don't know how much the amount and the clock of the RAM affects the results.
The tri-SLI 640x480 benchmark makes no sense. Sure, it shows how i7 dominates at resolutions that nobody has used since mid '90s, but such a benchmark has no bearing on realworld gaming performance. The problem is, based on such benchmarks some people will draw unfound conclusions that Deneb would be absolutely horrible for gaming and they would i7 get around double the FPS. But the situation would be totally different when realworld game settings and resolutions are used... "Surprisingly different".Quote:
Originally Posted by maroon1
But sure, it is a CPU benchmark. Nothing else. About as relevant as SuperPi.
Yeah, that one is taking the piss:shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by FischOderAal
There are loads of reviews where the Intel platform has faster RAM, or even clearly OC'd RAM while the AMD system gets just some overhyped value RAM. DDR800 is just stupid unless they use low latency. About 99% of those reviewers have no single clue what type of RAM the IMC favours running at any speed.
Im not pointing at all reviewers being biased, not at all. In some way it makes sense since it's simply a fact that Intel has been used a lot more than AMD the past few years in the enthusiast world, there are more reviews and more guides for Intel as well. So it ain't hard to favour a certain type of RAM to show your Intel rig off, however in a neutral review compared to other types of CPU (be it from AMD or Intel) I think it's the most retarded mistake to use different types of hardware among the systems. Why not use 2x HD4870X2 on one and a 6800GT on the other system and look which motherboard scores higher in FM benchies:rofl:
However, in this review there are just so many gaps. The DDR800 or DDR1066 problem for Phenom, well, you can live with that. But there's no way you can justify why one system would have 2GB of slow RAM and the other 4GB of super fast RAM. I can understand i7 having more RAM, no problem with that, but that C2 vs K10 thingy, that's just impossible:shakes: Half of that would be already used for the OS, drivers and apps:rolleyes:
Anyone who takes the slightest bit of notice of HardOCP's tri-sli results needs to look again..
I don't know why the i7 platform gets such huge FPS compared to anything else, but it's been seen before also.
If you look at the scaling between PhII @ 3.2 and at 3.8, you can see it's barely any different. If it was a CPU (and i mean just CPU) related bottleneck, it would take a 6-10Ghz PHenom II to match a 3.2 i7. Totally unrealistic, There's nothing at a technical level to give bloomfield a 300% adavntage at low res. Not even HT.
Penryn isn't much better.. you can't tell me a tri-channel IMC, and QPI can account for that massive difference. Especially when PhII shares similar technology and it doesn't give it any advantage here..
There's a toms Hardware review with similar odd results somewhere also.
I'm not suggesting anyones making up numbers here, just I would LOVE to find out the cause of this. If I had endless cash i'd certainly configure such systems up and investigate it properly.
Deneb with 2 GB of DDR2 800 gets better memory performance than Core 2 with DDR3 1600.There is a difference between 1 and 2 GB , but from 2 to 4 or 6 I doubt it's noticeable , if any.Quote:
Originally Posted by FischOderAal
Most benchmarks , except a few games won't have a problem with the memory size ; it's not like they're loading databases into RAM.
About flawed reviews, reading Kyle Benett's joke of a review just makes me very very very sad.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==
How in the world can such an ignorant, incompetent fanboy like he is, be at his position, "informing" people about new hardware?
First he uses 4 and 6 GB for the intel systems, and 2 GB for the AMD system and says this about it:
Then, to screw things up even more, he tests phenom with 800 mhz ram instead of 1066 mhz because "he can't get it to work". Obviously he gets 1600 mhz memory to work for all the intel systems.Quote:
Yes, they have different amounts of RAM. NONE of our test are dependent on RAM volumes and never come close to getting into a cacheing situation. I thought about ramping the Phenom II up to 4GB, but it would have likely made it a bit slower in the scoring. I used 4GB in the C2 system because that is the same stick we have standardized testing on all the i7 systems. The Corsair 1600 DDR3. Had we gone with 2GB in the Core 2 we would have likely gotten a bit faster scores, at least that has been my experience.
His review is filled with the most biased stupidity in every form and color possible, and then then when someone on the forum asks whether Kyle has something personal against someone at AMD, kyle explains:
Dear Kyle, there is a reason why every single website on the net gets better Phenom II scores than you.Quote:
The venom is pointed directly at AMD as a company. I will tell you exactly where it came from. A LOSER PART CALLED PHENOM II. Maybe it will be good for Wal-Mart boxes, but I will not be telling any of my family to buy one. AMD deserves a kick in the teeth for bringing this to the desktop market. Should have just called it Phenom scaling up and shut its mouth instead of contributing to a climate of expectation and again letting us all down. Phenom II, what a joke. "Dragon?" You have to be kidding me.
It's because every single website on the net is more competent at testing hardware, than you are.
Calling the Phenom II a loser part, after your utter failure of a review, is ironic in a sad way.
The only loser here is you, and the people that take you and your website even slightly serious.
On a brighter note, I think the techreport and anandtech reviews are quite balanced ones, that give a good idea of the product.
Did madshrimps make a review yet?
Your post is what makes no sense whatsoever.Kyle tests all playable resolutions ; you just have to turn the page.Quote:
Originally Posted by largon
What does that tell us ?
Phenom , Phenom 2 and Core hit a limit with tri SLI ; the video cards can do more ; the CPUs can't.
Core i7 moves the limitation on the video cards ; who wants the latest uber high end graphic cards ( geforce 295 , etc ) needs a Nehalem to make the card shine.
In a sense , the test Kyle performed is more relevant than any other gaming test on other review sites.
Kyle is a joke, he is probably the least credible "big time" review site out there.
Wasn't his initial Phenom review also ludicrous?
That's how [H] always cripples to meet their agenda.
They probably did the same with *coughcoughcough* certain pre-4k ATI cards under review.
Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Uhm, did you check what hardware he used?
Did you even read my last post?
If we ignore all the test-setup stupidity for a second, even Kyle's craptastic attitude, displayed throughout the entire article is enough to severely question any of the results he shows and conclusions he draws.
When will AMD be releasing a X3 based on Deneb?
If they price this right and release it at 3.0Ghz, it should really give the Intel Duals a run for their money.
It doesn't matter that Deneb has better memory-perf as Core2. What you have to maintain if you do a review is that you make it as fair as possible and that is definately not given in this review. Especially when he compares Deneb to the Core2 system in the end, while the tested Core2-System is far more expensive he claims the Core2-System has the better bang4buck (when paired with DDR2) :confused: Why didn't he test a C2D with DDR2 in the first place? That would've been a nice and fair comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Plus, imho reviews have to be as objective as possible as well, and that's another point where Kyle Benett fails. :shakes:
Quote:
The venom is pointed directly at AMD as a company. I will tell you exactly where it came from. A LOSER PART CALLED PHENOM II. Maybe it will be good for Wal-Mart boxes, but I will not be telling any of my family to buy one. AMD deserves a kick in the teeth for bringing this to the desktop market. Should have just called it Phenom scaling up and shut its mouth instead of contributing to a climate of expectation and again letting us all down. Phenom II, what a joke. "Dragon?" You have to be kidding me.
Might it be possible that Tri-SLI-systems need more memory, or more memory-bandwith? I really don't know, as I already pointed out.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
(P.S. The last AMD-system I had was an Athlon XP...)
Oh, Ive been using 2GB past months because of the IMC being a kind of dead, and believe me, you will notice 2GB vs 4GB;)Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Only reason why Deneb still gets a better memory performance is because of the IMC, nothing else. This however does not justify to just use 1) 2Gb and 2) under rated RAM.
Would you bench i7 with 3x 512MB running DDR3 1066 while comparing it to other systems? Im sure it will get more performance than anything else, but it's in no way correct;)
2.8Ghz unlocked est E8400 pricing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Just need to see the GTA4 benches.
I just read this [H] review and it's pretty sad to see the figures he came up with compaired to other sites. The review was bias without a question. I would also like to know why he did not go ahead and used a 4870X2, or say two of them so that there was no need to use a Nvidia chipset mobo. The Phenom II would have shined in the game tests when compaired with a 790GX / FX chipset mobo.
Anybody who is complaining about Kyle from HardOCP's attitude, methodology, conclusion, whatever, failed to notice one important thing: the numbers in the HardOCP review are the same as all the other reviews on the net. They are just the only website online with the balls to state the obvious conclusion, that Phenom II does not have the balls to compete with Core2 or i7.
Uhm, the numbers are completely different panfist, what reviews are you comparing it to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
I totally agree with what you said
Don't forget the fact that Kyle is such a clueless :banana::banana::banana::banana: that he bans everyone who disagrees with him on his forums. Just scroll through any random thread and you'll likely find someone with the rank of "banned".. it's that prevalent.
One time he made a news posting about locking sata connectors.. yes the cables that lock so that they don't come off as easily. Apparently he just found them sometime mid last year and made a VIDEO POST about them, explaining how they work. A bunch of people replied "uhh I've known about these for years" and he got all defensive and started banning people. It was hilarious cause he's so clueless, and he's slowly but surely showing his inadequacies.
Just the other day I saw a thread where a guy posted saying "uhh who is this Kyle Bennett guy? he sent me a PM saying "tell me what other name you've registered under so I can ban you!!".. anyone know what's going on?" Kyle banned him for posting the PM publicly, and deleted the entire thread which many had replied to.
He's just some old has-been reviewer who posts garbage and plays "hard to get" with Intel/AMD/NVIDIA. He wants them to beg him to review their products like he is a deity. If they just ask him if he's interested in reviewing a product he'll just shoot himself in the foot and say no.
Anyone who keeps Brent on their staff is clearly an idiot.
I kid :D
I like hardocp's graphs.
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/dis...4_7.html#sect0Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
xbit: PII 940 (3.0GHz) is 10% slower than Q9550 (2.8GHz) in Unreal Tournament. In World in Conflict, Crysis, and Far Cry 2 the PII 940 is even slower than Q8300 (2.5GHz), Q9400 (2.6GHz), and Q9550 (2.8GHz). In Left 4 Dead, the PII 940 is slower than the Q9400 and Q9550.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sho...px?i=3492&p=18
In Fallout3, PII 940 is slower than Q9550. In Left 4 Dead, PII 940 is slower than Q9450. In Far Cry 2, PII 940 is slower than Q8200, Q6600!!!, Q9300... In Crysis, PII 940 is slower than Q9400.
I could go on. Why don't you show me some reviews that are different?
Yes, Yorkfield is still a bit ahead but that doesn't make the so called review of [H] any better. Phenom II can compete if you take the whole plattform into account.
Q9650 3,0 GHz: 445 Euro ; Q9550: 295 Euro ; Q9450: 275 Euro
ASUS P5Q SE (P45): 80 Euro
4 GB DDR2 1066: 45 Euro
-----------------------------------
570 Euro ; 420 Euro ; 400 Euro
Phenom II 940 BE 3,0 GHz: 250 Euro
ASUS M3A78 (AMD 770): 65 Euro
4 GB DDR2 1066: 45 Euro
----------------------------------
360 Euro
Difference: 210 Euro ; 60 Euro ; 40 Euro
Based on this (german) review the Q9650 is barely faster than the Phenom II 940
http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/...#content_start
ComputerBase has a little different result:
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h...formancerating
So, I think the Phenom II is not a dumb choice ;) If you notice any flaws in my calculation, feel free to criticize :)
Lol @ Kyle and hardO(n)cp. That dude is the definition of fail and his website is the substance of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sr7
If you look at planet3dnow, the Phenom II is slower in every gaming benchmark across the board. Also...look at the name...3dnow...think they may be biased in favor of AMD?? If it weren't for the Everest Memory Latency benchmarks, the average % increase of the Intel processor would be much higher, and the Everest benchmark is about as synthetic and pointless as it gets.Quote:
Originally Posted by FischOderAal
Well...since the Q9400 is equal or better to the Phenom II why don't you recalculate your comparison based on the Q9400 price? I don't know the the Q9400 price in Euros.
If you picked those processors just because of equal clock speed, then you know that the Intel platform is significantly faster, clock for clock.
How about we take a look at a review that uses ddr 1066?Quote:
Originally Posted by panfist
Techreport for example?
You will find that besides Crysis Warhead, the game scores are not bad at all.
Sometimes even comparable to core i7 920...
I don't understand why you so blindly quote reviews that made the same mistake as your beloved Kyle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by panfist
You want to say that websites dont have bias against the phII. Just see this :-
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...m-ii,2119.html
PhII has a 3.64 Ghz Limit according to these guy's and the i7 is at 3.8 Ghz that also on air...
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH myyyy GOOOd they are so blooddy arse holes they used a Ultra 120 Extream on the i7 and a tiny Ajigo MF091 on the PhII man if thats not bias you are stupid n a arse.
Also FYI i7 @ 3.8Ghz 24/7 on a Ultra 120 is very difficult and temps are very near 90C "86-89" if even a bit of ambiance temp. increases you will get a BSOD.
No need to bold that really since i7 cant even beat Q6600 in certain games:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by panfist
Just look at this post were a lot of benchmarks are gathered together to get the FULL picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by panfist
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=228
Phenom II 940 is ~5% slower than Q9550 (9% slower than i7 920). Yeah, five percent. Does that make it a bad CPU? No. Does it make it a useless CPU (as the Hard OCP-review says)? Clearly not. Does it beat the i7? Quite obviously not. It seems as though the reviewer has either assumed Deneb would be the next performance king (which probably very few others did) or he's just biased reviewer.
You'd buy 3 GTX 280 and not a better platform overall? ROFL. Give me a break.Quote:
Originally Posted by FischOderAal
And as far as "your" benchark sites go:
N/C for this site, it's so outrageous it's not worth the comment.Quote:
Based on this (german) review the Q9650 is barely faster than the Phenom II 940
http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/...#content_start
Did you even look at FarCry2 graphs here?Quote:
You'd need to be blind, dumb and out of electricity not to figure it's ridicolous. All the test systems have a <5 FPS difference in all FC2 test. If that doesn't tell you something... I don't want to waste words ;) (no I didn't mean something insulting ;))
I agree, for new systems and for existing AM2 customers it's a wise choice even. For current Intel systems, or those who want the best, it's not a choice.Quote:
So, I think the Phenom II is not a dumb choice ;)
Yepp. Figured that out, too :) I edited the post (I got to check my math skills xD).Quote:
Originally Posted by panfist
The one that did a very "useful" FC2 review @ 1024x768? OK.... NOT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
In higher resolution tests Phenom does even better.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
http://www.ixbt.com/cpu/amd-phenom-2-x4-940.shtml
Thank you for interpreting my words instead of reading my posts.
Where did I state that? If I'd ever buy 3 GTX280 I'd go for what gives me the best performance, no matter the costs: i7Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
What I'm speaking of is price/performance, seems like you failed to notice that.
And where did I state that it makes sense for C2Q-owners to change to a Phenom II? I didn't, did I?Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
They are under "Realitätsferne Spiele-Tests", what means they aren't close to reality... This just once again shows how different the results can be.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
Panfist, go and buy your i7 to play worse than phenom 9950:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...d-920-review/7
I know than i7 its a lot better than phenom II, but this is the same that you do, you only see what you want to see..phenom II doing bad..but it do well in some test, and here the core2quads paired with ddr2 fall behind phenom II
I like the guru3d review. They used DDR2 1066, and tested the 1024x768 up to 1600x1200 in all game tests and the numbers were pretty close, with i7 ahead in all game tests at lower detail except for COD4 where the Phenom II with the 790 chipset has a 17fps advantage at low res, and 8fps advantage at high res. And in most of the games tests at high res the Phenom II will pull ahead against the i7.
Even tho P2 had 2 GB RAM, C2 4 GB and €i7 6 GB in the review?Quote:
Originally Posted by maroon1
Wouldn't you call it unfair?
Look, I am agree that Kyle didn't do the best job reviewing the Phenom II. There were plenty of variables and loose ends that he didn't tie up properly. If you read through the 700+ posts in the HardForum thread, I posted my beef there several times.
The fact is, though, that for an enthusiast the Phenom II doesn't look that appealing. If you are going to build a new machine from scratch, and you want it to be the fastest thing out there, or you want to OC it to the fastest thing out there, you are going to go Intel. Unless you already have a Phenom II compatible motherboard, then that kinda makes sense.
Look, I have money invested in AMD. I want them to do well. I want them to compete with Intel. Now, they are somewhat competitive, but really Intel is looming over them like a titan. A couple of strategic price cuts here and there, and Phenom II will be crushed like a bug.
I have an E8400 based system for gaming, and an AMD based HTPC. I'm totally happy with them, and I probably won't be upgrading anything for at least a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by noki
Weren't you the one who pointed out to me that this is XtremeSystems.org not xtremebugetsystems? Most folks I know who own AM2+ own 800 and NOT 1066. So should they upgrade RAM?Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
So I was jumped because I said I'd wait for DDR3 support simply because of the difference in the results from DDR2-800 as compared to 1066. You're RIGHT there was an improvement even with that small speed bump between those two RAM speeds from different reviews. Before any Donnie27 basher jumps in, that's ON TOPIC because the reviews showed different result when faster and lower latency RAM was use. I didn't see that much difference of difference on my Wolfdale using 800 and tried 1066. I held on to the 800 and sold the 4GB of 1066 my system. I couldn't notice the small difference or increase in apps or games.
In [H]ard ocp review they used tri sli. Now wouldn't the PhII do better with tri-sli if the north bridge speed was increased? Say from 1.8 > 2.6 and 2.8