AMD Phenom II Review Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by panfist

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.

---

No one who were looking for the fastest had to wait for the reviews or the launch, the MSRP said it all: the X4 940 is a sub $300 chip, and the reason is that AMD knows exactly how competitive their product is.
It shouldn't be compared to the "fastest thing out there" because we're talking totally different budgets.

Besides, the prices haven't been balanced out yet: Intel haven't had any real competition in that low end 4C market, ever.
Now P2 shows up and at least it makes some competition.
Wait two months and see who has the best bang per buck chip then, when prices settled.
Intel, or AMD? Dunno.:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mats

No one who were looking for the fastest had to wait for the reviews or the launch, the MSRP said it all: the X4 940 is a sub $300 chip...

---

This is xtremesystems.org, so I'm assuming we all know how to overclock. You can get a sub $300 chip from Intel that will beat the 940, hands down.

If you're not overclocking, you're wasting money whether you buy AMD or Intel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by panfist

You can get a sub $300 chip from Intel that will beat the 940, hands down.

---

That's why I said:

Quote:

---

Wait two months and see who has the best bang per buck chip then, when prices settled.

---

What I meant was that the prices doesn't really tell us what they're worth, yet.
If Intel has a better product, then they will cost more. Most likely.

Then again the 940 is easier to overclock, raise the multiplier and you're done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

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?

---

Come on, there's like no price difference between DDR800 and DDR1066. I just got a DDR1150 kit for what, only 100 Euro:rolleyes:

As I pointed out earlier, there ain't a lot wrong with DDR800, but at least get your timings sorted. Those reviews are done with DDR800 tCL5. DDR800 does the job though, but dont start logging clueless numbers if you're using under rated hardware which have great impacts on performance.

And regarding upgrading to DDR1066 after all, it ain't needed and actually wouldnt be worth it (unless you dont care and like buying new hardware). I would save that money for a next upgrade or something to be honest. But seriously, dont go post numbers everywhere while using under rated equipment.

Big mistake from me :(
I misinterpret an article i read
http://www.behardware.com/articles/7...-gtx-280s.html

Testing with DDR2-800 just isn't proper these days. Even if the difference is small, the fact remains that DDR2-1066 memory is absolutely pedestrian. Anyone buying into the platform now for Phenom II is going to be getting DDR2-1066 unless they are completely clueless. In the enthusiast circles (the people interested in upgrading from a current AM2+ platform), there's also a high likelihood of already having DDR2-1066. Eight freakin' gigabytes of CL5 DDR2-1066 now costs $100 flat, so it isn't like the upgrade is expensive or outlandish. Anyone reviewing the Phenom II is providing information to people who are knowingly buying into the end of a platform. Soon all PII chips will be superseded by AM3 models. Anyone wanting to use DDR3 will have to chuck their current Phenom II anyway. There's no reason this late in the game to showcase the chip outside of its best light--it's proper light. This means not being retarded: Use some cheap-as-dirt 1066 as it best represents the product with average, cheap support hardware.

Even if the difference between DDR2-800 and DDR2-1066 is 0.05% on average, it's the proper type of memory to test with at this point since it's the standard. Even Phenom was 1066 compliant with two sticks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

Even if the difference between DDR2-800 and DDR2-1066 is 0.05% on average, it's the proper type of memory to test with at this point since it's the standard. Even Phenom was 1066 compliant with two sticks.

---

But don't you see, Kyle can't get PH2 to work with DDR2-1066. :ROTF:

But for some reason he thinks he is the best reviewer on the web, and his methods far exceed what anyone else is doing. :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

Memory configuration in HardOCP review is more than unfair is invalided the test!
Why? because each 280GTX in sli will adressed 256MB in main memory. 3 cards 768MB will be reserved. 790i and probably 780a will reserved 256MB for itself.
- PhII rig has 2GB and 780a : 1GB remaining for applications.
- Core 2 Quad has 4GB and 790i : 3GB remaining for applications.
- Core i7 has 6GB and X58 : more than 5GB remaining for applications.
Just need one to test Far Cry 2 with 1GB versus Far Cry 2 with 2GB :D

---

Thats one big pile of jibberish and so far from the truth it hurts.

Man, that is such nonsense it's so good to put you on ignore list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

Memory configuration in HardOCP review is more than unfair is invalided the test!
Why? because each 280GTX in sli will adressed 256MB in main memory. 3 cards 768MB will be reserved. 790i and probably 780a will reserved 256MB for itself.
- PhII rig has 2GB and 780a : 1GB remaining for applications.
- Core 2 Quad has 4GB and 790i : 3GB remaining for applications.
- Core i7 has 6GB and X58 : more than 5GB remaining for applications.
Just need one to test Far Cry 2 with 1GB versus Far Cry 2 with 2GB :D

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FischOderAal

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: i7
What I'm speaking of is price/performance, seems like you failed to notice that.

---

IIRC, you were commenting on the [H] review, so it made sense to presume we'd take the Tri-SLI GTX 280 into account.

Quote:

---

And where did I state that it makes sense for C2Q-owners to change to a Phenom II? I didn't, did I?

---

I did not say you did. That entire part was just my comment.

Quote:

---

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.

---

So, why are they even mentioned?

The person who can afford 3 way SLI of GTX280 won't even look in the direction of PII or Core2, so the testing on the HardOCP while interesting was kinda pointless (in terms of assessment of PII vs Core2) and wasn't a real life scenario. What would be good to see is a minimum FPS numbers on max settings with 1 or 2 videocards. Such data would be a lot more useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enisey

The person who can afford 3 way SLI of GTX280 won't even look in the direction of PII or Core2, so the testing on the HardOCP while interesting was kinda pointless (in terms of assessment of PII vs Core2) and wasn't a real life scenario. What would be good to see is a minimum FPS numbers on max settings with 1 or 2 videocards. Such data would be a lot more useful.

---

QFT.

To see exactly what is going on, this is what needs to be done:

Test all cpus with current games with a x2 card,

Test all cpus with current games at same settings with 2x x2 cards.

The setup is a 9950 @ 3.3Ghz
Asus M3A79-T Deluxe
2GB Crucial Ballistix clocked at 900mhz with 4 4 4 12 timings
EVGA GTX280 (The card was a little overclocked at 640mhz core)

Far Cry 2 - 640x480 very high settings. When I set everything at it's lowest I get about 5 FPS more.

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/9...ingstj8.th.jpg

Now doesn't [H] review show more a problem with Tri-SLI scaling on a 780a NV chipset mobo, then a problem with the processor? I'm just asking, as I feel normal SLI might have worked a little better in the test looking at the results I got with a Phenom I clocked to 3.3Ghz. I know the HT is higher, but that could have been done with the review as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Thats one big pile of jibberish and so far from the truth it hurts.

---

Out of curiosity, how would the addressing be assigned in each case then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enisey

The person who can afford 3 way SLI of GTX280 won't even look in the direction of PII or Core2, so the testing on the HardOCP while interesting was kinda pointless (in terms of assessment of PII vs Core2) and wasn't a real life scenario. What would be good to see is a minimum FPS numbers on max settings with 1 or 2 videocards. Such data would be a lot more useful.

---

QFT ditto!

In real life or real world most folks have one Nv-260 or one 4870. So we'd need a pretty good Xtreme Systems Video card poll! I have a feeling (and that's moot BTW) reviewers using one high-end card is closer to real world and than someone using two X2's from Nv or AMD.

Guys, why all the Kyle bashing? Where were all the complaints he got for his BS Conroe launch?:rolleyes: I wish I had made copies of the text before he revised it. Sure those tilting toward AMD thought he did one of the better reviews.

Memory performance, there is some truth to 2GB vs 4GB. If P.A.E. is enabled it can cause slow downs and make 4GB seem slower than 2GB.

I asked Behardware explanation and i understand my mistake :(
If i correctly understand now memory assignement for each card and chipset not exceeding 4GB limit so memory is fully usable by applications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

I asked Behardware explanation and i understand my mistake :(
If i correctly understand now memory assignement for each card and chipset not exceeding 4GB limit so memory is fully usable by applications.

---

Well there are 4 options basicly.

First tho remember. They reserve addressspace. They do not use it as physical memory. And a 280GTX card maps 768MB actually.

1. They used a 32bit OS and no remap of PCIe, etc (Ancient days so to say). In that case the PH2 system would have 1½GB like the Core 2 and i7. To be exact you need to calculate all devices etc in the box.

2. They used 64bit OS and no remap. This is still very very very unlikely. Anyway, that would leave 1½GB for PH2, 1½GB for the core 2 and 3½GB or so for the i7.

3. 32Bit OS with PAE and remap. Unlikely tho. But the second least unlikely. In this case it would be 2, 4 and 4GB assuming no shardy artificial limits like in XP (Tho still artificially 4GB limit). i7 would actually have 6GB on a 32bit windows server OS (Enterprise version or datacenter).

4. 64Bit OS and remap. (Most likely. I dont even think i7 and PH2 would support anything but remap.). In that case its 2, 4 and 6GB ofcourse.

Also remember that the games tested are 32bit and most likely not compiled with being large address aware. In short, they can only use 2GB. Even tho a 64bit OS would allow a 32bit application to use all 4GB.

Remap is a feature that was new some 3+ years ago on the desktop. For those even allowing you to disable it.

Here is a funny example if you can disable remap. Used it to tell people that 64bit OS alone aint enough.
http://shintai.ambition.cz/pics/remap1.jpg
http://shintai.ambition.cz/pics/remap2.jpg

But rememebr remap is ON nowadays. You need ancient HW for it basicly.

I have completely understand now :up:

QFT ditto!

In real life or real world most folks have one Nv-260 or one 4870. So we'd need a pretty good Xtreme Systems Video card poll! I have a feeling (and that's moot BTW) reviewers using one high-end card is closer to real world and than someone using two X2's from Nv or AMD.

Guys, why all the Kyle bashing? Where were all the complaints he got for his BS Conroe launch?:rolleyes: I wish I had made copies of the text before he revised it. Sure those tilting toward AMD thought he did one of the better reviews.

Memory performance, there is some truth to 2GB vs 4GB. If P.A.E. is enabled it can cause slow downs and make 4GB seem slower than 2GB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Memory performance, there is some truth to 2GB vs 4GB. If P.A.E. is enabled it can cause slow downs and make 4GB seem slower than 2GB.

---

Uhm. No. And PAE is on in XP SP2 and up. Nomatter how much or little memory. Mainly due to PAE is needed for NX.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Uhm. No. And PAE is on in XP SP2 and up. Nomatter how much or little memory. Mainly due to PAE is needed for NX.

---

But you can turn it off, right? I notice in Vista64bit I didn't see PAE enabled. Don't need it for 64bit? Where is it? System Properties shows it in WinXP32. (also Bootini IIRC)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

But you can turn it off, right? I notice in Vista64bit I didn't see PAE enabled. Don't need it for 64bit? Where is it? System Properties shows it in WinXP32. (also Bootini IIRC)

---

64bit doesnt use it since they already use 40-48bit addressing or so. PAE is simply 36bit hardware addressing.

PAE is on by default, hence not in the boot.ini file.

There is also no slowdown with PAE. Unless you use AWE applications like SQl. But the benefit is bigger than the penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Guys, why all the Kyle bashing?

---

Does that need any kind of explanation?

Using slow speed ram in a review for the platform you dislike, 2 GB instead of 4 GB ram, and then acting like an immature lame fanboy in the entire review is just not going to get you any oscars.

It does not even matter whether or not people who buy AMD would upgrade memory, neither is it relevant that some programs Kyle used to bench do or do not use the full 4 GB.

A person that reviews should at least make some sort of effort to appear to be giving objective info about a product. Not all reviews are perfect, but some of Kyle's reviews are so idiotic that it makes me wonder whether his entire site is ment as some sort of joke or parody on biased reviews.
Sadly he is dead serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Does that need any kind of explanation?

Using slow speed ram in a review for the platform you dislike, 2 GB instead of 4 GB ram, and then acting like an immature lame fanboy in the entire review is just not going to get you any oscars.

It does not even matter whether or not people who buy AMD would upgrade memory, neither is it relevant that some programs Kyle used to bench do or do not use the full 4 GB.

A person that reviews should at least make some sort of effort to appear to be giving objective info about a product. Not all reviews are perfect, but some of Kyle's reviews are so idiotic that it makes me wonder whether his entire site is ment as some sort of joke or parody on biased reviews.
Sadly he is dead serious.

---

You haven't' presented the slightest evidence that his numbers are off or that the benchmarks he used were affected by the memory difference.The burden of proof is on you.

FYI , reviews aren't made exclusively for XtremeSystems users ; I'm sure most of the people who visit review sites don't know what RAM timings are.People will buy a prebuilt system that probably has the cheapest mobo and cheapest RAM , made on a ship between ASIA and Europe/US.They saw the CPU sticker or asked for a system built around a specific CPU.

In the real world nobody cares about DDR3 2000 CL 6 , 1.8V Vcore , QPI voltage , etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

Come on, there's like no price difference between DDR800 and DDR1066. I just got a DDR1150 kit for what, only 100 Euro:rolleyes:

As I pointed out earlier, there ain't a lot wrong with DDR800, but at least get your timings sorted. Those reviews are done with DDR800 tCL5. DDR800 does the job though, but dont start logging clueless numbers if you're using under rated hardware which have great impacts on performance.

And regarding upgrading to DDR1066 after all, it ain't needed and actually wouldnt be worth it (unless you dont care and like buying new hardware). I would save that money for a next upgrade or something to be honest. But seriously, dont go post numbers everywhere while using under rated equipment.

---

In which cases does DDR800 -> DDR1066 have great impacts on performance? And what are those great impacts? 1-2% difference?

Oh wait, here in XS, if CPU_A is 3 % faster than CPU_B, then CPU_B is being "completely destroyed" by CPU_A. :rolleyes: Wtf people, get the cheaper one and be happy. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Not all reviews are perfect, but some of Kyle's reviews are so idiotic that it makes me wonder whether his entire site is meant as some sort of joke or parody on biased reviews.
Sadly he is dead serious.

---

LOL :rofl:

So true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

You haven't' presented the slightest evidence that his numbers are off or that the benchmarks he used were affected by the memory difference.The burden of proof is on you.

FYI , reviews aren't made exclusively for XtremeSystems users ; I'm sure most of the people who visit review sites don't know what RAM timings are.People will buy a prebuilt system that probably has the cheapest mobo and cheapest RAM , made on a ship between ASIA and Europe/US.They saw the CPU sticker or asked for a system built around a specific CPU.

In the real world nobody cares about DDR3 2000 CL 6 , 1.8V Vcore , QPI voltage , etc.

---

I really do not expect you, with your ridiculous fanboyish sigs, to understand why objectivity is an important part of reviewing hardware, when it's about AMD.

To respond to your points, what kind of evidence can I possibly give, other than that Kyle's results differ from the results of websites that did bother to test in a fair way, that will make you, of all people, satisfied?

To me it's quite ridiculous that after complaining about a review that is obviously screwed up in a few serious ways, starting with unfair hardware setup, you now believe it is my burden to give proof that this unfair testing platform influenced the results.

Here you go:
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/am...r2-533-p2.html

If you need further "proof", you can use google.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

You haven't' presented the slightest evidence that his numbers are off or that the benchmarks he used were affected by the memory difference.The burden of proof is on you.

---

Actually there is no need to prove anything when it is something obvious that anybody with common sense can ascertain.

I have noticed that it is often a common forum tactic to tell someone that they have the "burden of proof" when it is something that is obvious and there is absolutely nothing available to counter their argument.

EDIT: Gee... why don't we use DDR3-1066 ram for all i7 benchmark reviews. You think that might be acceptable? At 9-9-9 timings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

In which cases does DDR800 -> DDR1066 have great impacts on performance? And what are those great impacts? 1-2% difference?

Oh wait, here in XS, if CPU_A is 3 % faster than CPU_B, then CPU_B is being "completely destroyed" by CPU_A. :rolleyes: Wtf people, get the cheaper one and be happy. :)

---

yea but also since this is xs people want the most performance possible. most don't even care about the cost. so even tho i wouldn't say cpu A destroys cpu B i could understand why people want it. too bad for the normal consumer that price/perf means more than 3% performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

I really do not expect you, with your ridiculous fanboyish sigs, to understand why objectivity is an important part of reviewing hardware, when it's about AMD.

To respond to your points, what kind of evidence can I possibly give, other than that Kyle's results differ from the results of websites that did bother to test in a fair way, that will make you, of all people, satisfied?

To me it's quite ridiculous that after complaining about a review that is obviously screwed up in a few serious ways, starting with unfair hardware setup, you now believe it is my burden to give proof that this unfair testing platform influenced the results.

Here you go:
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/am...r2-533-p2.html

If you need further "proof", you can use google.

---

This has to be the most strange reply ever ; you reply by giving a link which supports my argument ? I don't know if to LMAO or shrug.


The difference between DDR2 533 and DDR2 1066 on Phenom 2 is 3%.

What's the difference between DDR2 800 as used by Kyle and DDR 2 1066 ? 0.5% ? Is it above variability ?

I'll end with the conclusion from the review

Quote:

---

There is even no need to comment on the last fact. I remind you that memory frequencies differed twofold. Twofold difference on one hand, and 3% performance gain on the other hand - do you need any comments?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

Actually there is no need to prove anything when it is something obvious that anybody with common sense can ascertain.

I have noticed that it is often a common forum tactic to tell someone that they have the "burden of proof" when it is something that is obvious and there is absolutely nothing available to counter their argument.

EDIT: Gee... why don't we use DDR3-1066 ram for all i7 benchmark reviews. You think that might be acceptable? At 9-9-9 timings.

---

Looks like your "common sense" isn't as common sense since I have a review generously linked by Banana man that points out how little memory speed matters with Phenom 2.

DDR2 533 to DDR 2 1066 and you gain 3% overall ? Common sense ?! :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Looks like your "common sense" isn't as common sense since I have a review generously linked by Banana man that points out how little memory speed matters with Phenom 2.

DDR2 533 to DDR 2 1066 and you gain 3% overall ? Common sense ?! :ROTF:

---

Ah... but that is a 3% average.

Considering there are some percentages in the double digits... one would need to be blind or biased to completely dismiss the difference and blatantly use the slower ram in a professional benchmark review.

(Oh and you claim 3% for 533 to 1066 and then you claim 0.5% for 800 to 1066. Do you have PROOF of that? I think NOT.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

yea but also since this is xs people want the most performance possible. most don't even care about the cost. so even tho i wouldn't say cpu A destroys cpu B i could understand why people want it. too bad for the normal consumer that price/perf means more than 3% performance.

---

If that was the case, everyone would be having i7 builds and AMD would be unknown for most of the people. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

Ah... but that is a 3% average.

Considering there are some percentages in the double digits... one would need to be blind or biased to completely dismiss the difference and blatantly use the slower ram in a professional benchmark review.

(Oh and you claim 3% for 533 to 1066 and then you claim 0.5% for 800 to 1066. Do you have PROOF of that? I think NOT.)

---

if it would scale linearly it would be a 1.5% advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

This has to be the most strange reply ever ; you reply by giving a link which supports my argument ? I don't know if to LMAO or shrug.


The difference between DDR2 533 and DDR2 1066 on Phenom 2 is 3%.

---

Very good! You can talk big.
Now the next step is to try to actually read the article I linked...
Pay special attention the gaming benchmarks.

Also try not to miss the conclusion this time.
The biggest performance gain in applications: Unreal Tournament 3 (22%), World in Conflict (10%), 7-Zip (10%).

Not bad eh?
And this is about the OLD Phenom. Since the new phenom is not only faster clockspeed wise, but also ipc wise, it only makes sense the processor would need more bandwidth this time around yes?

No actually I think I am explaining something to someone who does not really want to understand to begin with.

Funny how the posts was when hardocp reviewed conroe. Anyway, without talking about hardocp and its junk as such. Those memory+speed wouldnt change anything at all. Less than 1%. 0.5% is a good bet on average.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Very good! You can talk big.
Now the next step is to try to actually read the article I linked...
Pay special attention the gaming benchmarks.

Also try not to miss the conclusion this time.
[b] The biggest performance gain in applications: Unreal Tournament 3 (22%), World in Conflict (10%), 7-Zip (10%).

Not bad eh?
And this is about the OLD Phenom. Since the new phenom is not only faster clockspeed wise, but also ipc wise, it only makes sense the processor would need more bandwidth this time around yes?

No actually I think I am explaining something to someone who does not really want to understand to begin with.

---

Actually faster memory is better for the "old" phenom. I think cache blinds you in terms of "IPC" gains. On a pure core view I dont think Phenom 2 is any faster than Phenom 1.

Its abit like a Core 2 with its large cache. DDR2-667 vs DDR3-2000 basicly makes no difference. Tho you could claim it FSB limited. But we already seen the 1066vs1333FSB....

Anyway, look on the scores. I would say UT2 and maybe World in conflict is simply bad testing.

Call of duty..0%. CoH 2%, CoJ 2%. Stalker 4%, Crysis 5%.

Also a fun note. DDR2-800 in the end might not have been so bad...

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2989

Phenom 2 used Corsair DDR2-8888. Thats 4-4-4-12 at DDR2-1100. I´m sure you can have some pretty good timings at DDR2-800 speed as in 3-3-3? The DDR3 is 8-8-8 I think

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

So does "doesn't suck" count?

---

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hM4oCe...eature=related :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Funny how the posts was when hardocp reviewed conroe. Anyway, without talking about hardocp and its junk as such. Those memory+speed wouldnt change anything at all. Less than 1%. 0.5% is a good bet on average.



Actually faster memory is better for the "old" phenom. I think cache blinds you in terms of "IPC" gains. On a pure core view I dont think Phenom 2 is any faster than Phenom 1.

Its abit like a Core 2 with its large cache. DDR2-667 vs DDR3-2000 basicly makes no difference. Tho you could claim it FSB limited. But we already seen the 1066vs1333FSB....

Anyway, look on the scores. I would say UT2 and maybe World in conflict is simply bad testing.

Call of duty..0%. CoH 2%, CoJ 2%. Stalker 4%, Crysis 5%.

Also a fun note. DDR2-800 in the end might not have been so bad...

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2989

Phenom 2 used Corsair DDR2-8888. Thats 4-4-4-12 at DDR2-1100. I´m sure you can have some pretty good timings at DDR2-800 speed as in 3-3-3? The DDR3 is 8-8-8 I think

---

Do you have any proof or reason to think this whatsoever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Do you have any proof or reason to think this whatsoever?

---

You can start read the link I provided. Plus your own link actually contradicts you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

You can start read the link I provided. Plus your own link actually contradicts you.

---

Your link has little to do with the subject, and my own link shows a good improvement in some benchmarks as memory speed increases.

Anyway I do love the lost planet run. The demonstration between the past and the future. Games like supreme commander would look the same. Plus the overall graphs in all resolutions.

Core 2 and Phenom 2 is the past. AMDs graphics department might actually be its CPU departments biggest enemy besides game developers.

Sure is a long way to 2011...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Here you go:
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/am...r2-533-p2.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

The biggest performance gain in applications: Unreal Tournament 3 (22%), World in Conflict (10%), 7-Zip (10%).

---

In this bench, they show DDR2 533 and 1066. DDR2 1066 is twice as fast as 533, and you get on average 3% gain.

So for a 100% increase in RAM speed...you get a 22% increase in one game. That also happens to be in a game that significantly favors the Intel architecture in the first place... World In Conflict hardly counts in your favor. A 10% return for a 100% increase in speed is not that impressive. Again, i7 will blow Phenom out of the water in this game anyway because of it's multithreading.

7zip...doesn't really count in AMD's favor either because it's far behind Intel. So what if double the RAM speed gets you a 10% gain when spending the same amount of money on an Intel system will net you a 25% gain?

HardOCP's position is that the jump from 800 to 1066 MHz RAM would not provide a significant performance increase. You are supporting HardOCP's position, just in case you didn't realize.

edit: looks like I'm not the first to come to the same conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Your link has little to do with the subject, and my own link shows a good improvement in some benchmarks as memory speed increases.

---

The link is relevant to memory performance. Your link also shows the opposite. Guess you didnt like those results...

Average performance gain - 3%

You had to pick the abnormalities just to even try to make a case.

DDR2-533 to DDR2-1066 is 100%. DDR2-800 to DDR2-1066 is 33%. Plus the lowered scaling issue. Even by the best we talk 1% average. or less than 2% in Crysis. Thats with 100% scaling.

thanks for the link shintai. really a lot of people are being fanboys about the whole ddr2 ddr3 thing. ddr3 really doesn't have that big of an advantage over ddr2. it gives some extra performance but it doesn't equate to much. sure ddr3 will be nice whenever it drops in price but right now i find it as pointless. i hope next month when there are am3 phenoms out you guys will just drop this because im not seeing that huge of a gain from ddr3. phenom II am2+ supports ddr2 1066 while the am3 ones will support ddr3 1333. ill give it 1% performance bonus max. remember the timings are going to go up as well when with ddr2 800 and 1066 the timings are typically the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

thanks for the link shintai. really a lot of people are being fanboys about the whole ddr2 ddr3 thing. ddr3 really doesn't have that big of an advantage over ddr2. it gives some extra performance but it doesn't equate to much. sure ddr3 will be nice whenever it drops in price but right now i find it as pointless. i hope next month when there are am3 phenoms out you guys will just drop this because im not seeing that huge of a gain from ddr3. phenom II am2+ supports ddr2 1066 while the am3 ones will support ddr3 1333. ill give it 1% performance bonus max. remember the timings are going to go up as well when with ddr2 800 and 1066 the timings are typically the same.

---

all the AM3 boards I see they'll at HT3.0 and 3.1 isn't comming out till what march ?
I hope Am3 chips have higher NB support. I've gotten mine up to 2,730mhz any higher and it won't post.
I can set my HT to 2.6ghz and Nb to 2.6ghz and at 1.350 volts for nb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

thanks for the link shintai. really a lot of people are being fanboys about the whole ddr2 ddr3 thing. ddr3 really doesn't have that big of an advantage over ddr2. it gives some extra performance but it doesn't equate to much. sure ddr3 will be nice whenever it drops in price but right now i find it as pointless. i hope next month when there are am3 phenoms out you guys will just drop this because im not seeing that huge of a gain from ddr3. phenom II am2+ supports ddr2 1066 while the am3 ones will support ddr3 1333. ill give it 1% performance bonus max. remember the timings are going to go up as well when with ddr2 800 and 1066 the timings are typically the same.

---

One good thing about AM3 tho is that the NB gets a 200Mhz increase. So it could give some boost there. Unfortunately it might also be a false marketing for the memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demonkevy666

all the AM3 boards I see they'll at HT3.0 and 3.1 isn't comming out till what march ?
I hope Am3 chips have higher NB support. I've gotten mine up to 2,730mhz any higher and it won't post.
I can set my HT to 2.6ghz and Nb to 2.6ghz and a.350 volts for nb.

---

HT wont do anything absicly. For NB speed look above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

The link is relevant to memory performance.

---

Of intel platforms yes, and were we talking about ddr3 on intel platforms?
No Shintai, we were talking about ddr2 on AMD platforms.

Quote:

---

Your link also shows the opposite. Guess you didnt like those results...

Average performance gain - 3%

You had to pick the abnormalities just to even try to make a case.

DDR2-533 to DDR2-1066 is 100%. DDR2-800 to DDR2-1066 is 33%. Plus the lowered scaling issue. Even by the best we talk 1% average. or less than 2% in Crysis. Thats with 100% scaling.

---

Sorry how is a 3% gain the opposite of what I was claiming?
I was claiming there was an improvement, and that the improvement was especially substantial in some games and winzip.

I really wonder when you will be making your point...
Maybe you allready made your point?
In that case it wasn't a very good one.

I have yet to see a comparsion of NB speed increase % from deneb.
agena's was 0.40-2.8%increase form 200mhz.


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...x4-9850_4.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Of intel platforms yes, and were we talking about ddr3 on intel platforms?
No Shintai, we were talking about ddr2 on AMD platforms.



Sorry how is a 3% gain the opposite of what I was claiming?
I was claiming there was an improvement, and that the improvement was especially substantial in some games and winzip.

I really wonder when you will be making your point...
Maybe you allready made your point?
In that case it wasn't a very good one.

---

Thats so funny. Nothing better than denial. Take and look on Crysis. Its the only thing that goes across. Add your 2% or actually even less. Tell us how that works out for the scores.

You picked 2 abnormalities and claims its like a standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demonkevy666

all the AM3 boards I see they'll at HT3.0 and 3.1 isn't comming out till what march ?
I hope Am3 chips have higher NB support. I've gotten mine up to 2,730mhz any higher and it won't post.
I can set my HT to 2.6ghz and Nb to 2.6ghz and at 1.350 volts for nb.

---

idk if HT 3.1 is ever coming to phenom II. HT 3.0 is everything up until 2.6ghz and considering we are only at 1.8 right now on phenom II and 2.0 is coming soon i doubt we will see 2.6ghz+. just because it has been invented doesn't mean it will be implemented. if i remember correctly HT 3.0 was created in 2006 but cpus didn't use that right away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

64bit doesnt use it since they already use 40-48bit addressing or so. PAE is simply 36bit hardware addressing.

PAE is on by default, hence not in the boot.ini file.

There is also no slowdown with PAE. Unless you use AWE applications like SQl. But the benefit is bigger than the penalty.

---

Thanks!

Even if the performance gain is less than 0,1% it does not justify the difference in setups! No one would EVER conduct a serious research with such lacking method, or at least not any serious research. If the memories don't have to be the same speed or timings, why bother with the same GFX? Or PSU? You use as standardised equipment as possible to reduce number of potential errors. It's just stupid to defend his choice of hardware - no one would ever "allow" a PII to outrun an i7 simply because the first uses a 4870X2 while the latter has a 8600GS and 512MB of RAM in a review and not call it biased (because it would have been, just as this one).

If he didn't get the 1066 memory to work on the PII, why not using the same 800 on the C2Q? If the performance loss/gain is close to nothing - what sense does it make to make them different?! If one wants to be taken seriously, the reviews have to have at least a bit scientific approach. This one clearly lacks quite many of those requirements.

Erm Shintai, I just linked to that article, and said that in a few cases the memory did bring performance improvements.
That's fairly accurate as far as I can see.

And we simply do not know what faster memory brings for the phenom II, untill someone actually does some benchmarks with both types of memory.
Your pro-intel speculation is predictable and useless.

I wonder what you will throw at me next. More links that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject? More speculation about how faster memory will do next to nothing for Phenom II?
How about we skip all that, do you have anything that does make sense, if even slightly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marten_larsson

Even if the performance gain is less than 0,1% it does not justify the difference in setups! No one would EVER conduct a serious research with such lacking method, or at least not any serious research. If the memories don't have to be the same speed or timings, why bother with the same GFX? Or PSU? You use as standardised equipment as possible to reduce number of potential errors. It's just stupid to defend his choice of hardware - no one would ever "allow" a PII to outrun an i7 simply because the first uses a 4870X2 while the latter has a 8600GS and 512MB of RAM in a review and not call it biased (because it would have been, just as this one).

If he didn't get the 1066 memory to work on the PII, why not using the same 800 on the C2Q? If the performance loss/gain is close to nothing - what sense does it make to make them different?! If one wants to be taken seriously, the reviews have to have at least a bit scientific approach. This one clearly lacks quite many of those requirements.

---

Agreed. The difference in memory speed and especially memory size is completely unacceptable, even if there are no gains whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

phenom II am2+ supports ddr2 1066 while the am3 ones will support ddr3 1333.

---

The gigabyte AM3 board is claiming DDR 3 1666 support although I'm guessing its a typo and is supposed to be 1600..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chew*

The gigabyte AM3 board is claiming DDR 3 1666 support although I'm guessing its a typo and is supposed to be 1600..

---

na i wish they supported 1600 but its 1333. thats why im not expecting much out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

na i wish they supported 1600 but its 1333. thats why im not expecting much out of it.

---

Actually after typing the above I double checked and it's clearly stamped on the board as well "DDR 3 1666+"

So maybe the cpu only offiicially supports ddr 3 1333 however you can run at higher via Ocing?

Quick guess but to compete with 1066 @ 5-5-5-12 1666 would need to run 8-8-8-24 If the memory controller can handle it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chew*

Actually after typing the above I double checked and it's clearly stamped on the board as well "DDR 3 1666+"

So maybe the cpu only offiicially supports ddr 3 1333 however you can run at higher via Ocing ?

---

o im sure you can. there are some crazy ddr3 modules out there that can overclock pretty well. when i get am3 i might just buy some 1600 modules.

OT but whats the jedec standard for ddr 3?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Agreed. The difference in memory speed and especially memory size is completely unacceptable, even if there are no gains whatsoever.

---

I Disagree on this issue.

The difference in memory IS acceptable if they use the fastest memory that a particular CPU can support. If it supports DDR2-1066 then that is what you use. If it supports DDR3-1600 then that is what you use.

In other words... use common sense and use the RAM that people would actually be using.

I think the problem here is that the issue is clouded by people that are used to the motherboards that determine the speed of of RAM; and not the CPU. With these older CPU/MB people would determine what ram to buy based on what they wanted to spend. Things are just a bit different now with IMC on the CPU.

You won't see anyone using DDR3-1066 with an i7 940 or 965... so if anyone used that ram in a review I would be just as critical of their review.

FYI i did a test with intel with 2 1x1 gig ddr 800 4-4-4-12 in 06

I then added 2 more identical sticks which required me to back off timing to 5-5-5-15 and scored 1000 points more in 06.......Had to do with the paging file with only 2 gigs installed.

Links

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=8958751 2 gigs 4-4-4-12 ddr2 800
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=8967323 4 gigs 5-5-5-15 ddr2 800

Not saying this is what happned in the review but it can happen in some instances and applications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Does that need any kind of explanation?

Using slow speed ram in a review for the platform you dislike, 2 GB instead of 4 GB ram, and then acting like an immature lame fanboy in the entire review is just not going to get you any oscars.

It does not even matter whether or not people who buy AMD would upgrade memory, neither is it relevant that some programs Kyle used to bench do or do not use the full 4 GB.

A person that reviews should at least make some sort of effort to appear to be giving objective info about a product. Not all reviews are perfect, but some of Kyle's reviews are so idiotic that it makes me wonder whether his entire site is ment as some sort of joke or parody on biased reviews.
Sadly he is dead serious.

---

I saw your explanation and its still off by a mile or 1.6 Kilometers. Kyle made every excuse in the world for AMD Conroe did the AM2's worse than the X2's did the P4. Kyle did the same thing again when 4 X 4 launched. Maybe like Rammsteiner, Kyle is pissed AMD lost yet another round and he's depressed?

Where were the AMD leaning folks claiming to want fair and unbiased benchmarks for AM2 he gave a :up:, 4 X $ he gave a :up: and Conroe he gave yes, a :down: uh? Again, he's revised, hell, rewrote his whole Conroe conclusion when other web sites like Tech Report that you quoted, called him out.

Kyle's whatever but Phenom 2 still did worse in even the most favorable review. You do know that Intel's score were up and down as well, or were you only looking at AMD's?

For the record, I was basing my AM3 comments NOT solely on DDR3 but faster base Clock + DDR3:up: right now DDR3 on a slow HT link is like RAMBUS on a P3. P3 couldn't take advantage of the extra Bandwidth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chew*

OT but whats the jedec standard for ddr 3?

---

what do you need it for? i know that the jdec standard for 1066 is CL7 but lol i think i have only seen like 2 or 3 CL7 sticks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

what do you need it for? i know that the jdec standard for 1066 is CL7 but lol i think i have only seen like 2 or 3 CL7 sticks.

---

Nah just curios, AMD has only ever specced cpu's to run at jedec standards so if the standard is 1333 then it makes sense.

Etc max jedec standard for SD 133, ddr was 400, ddr2 1066, etc etc....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chew*

Nah just curios, AMD has only ever specced cpu's to run at jedec standards so if the standard is 1333 then it makes sense.

Etc max jedec standard for SD 133, ddr was 400, ddr2 1066, etc etc....

---

hmmmmm i see jedec max for ddr3 is 1600. im pretty sure that the first am3 chips only support 1333 but i wouldn't doubt it if amd sneaked in 1600 or released 1600 chips later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

hmmmmm i see jedec max for ddr3 is 1600. im pretty sure that the first am3 chips only support 1333 but i wouldn't doubt it if amd sneaked in 1600 or released 1600 chips later.

---

Yah they did that with athlon xp if your remember, they snuck th axp 3200 in and I think it was one of 2 chips that actually supported ddr 400. I remember cuz i bought it...my 1700 jiuhb clocked better :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chew*

Yah they did that with athlon xp if your remember, they snuck th axp 3200 in and I think it was one of 2 chips that actually supported ddr 400. I remember cuz i bought it...my 1700 jiuhb clocked better :(

---

IIRC, it got a higher model number merely because it supported faster RAM. AMD caught flack because in many cases it was still slower than the older 2800+ plus that had slower RAM but ran at a higher MHz. I hope they don't pull that one again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

IIRC, it got a higher model number merely because it supported faster RAM. AMD caught flack because in many cases it was still slower than the older 2800+ plus that had slower RAM but ran at a higher MHz. I hope they don't pull that one again.

---

lets stay on topic please. im sure if i felt like it i can name everything wrong intel has done in the past yet im not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

Erm Shintai, I just linked to that article, and said that in a few cases the memory did bring performance improvements.
That's fairly accurate as far as I can see.

And we simply do not know what faster memory brings for the phenom II, untill someone actually does some benchmarks with both types of memory.
Your pro-intel speculation is predictable and useless.

I wonder what you will throw at me next. More links that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject? More speculation about how faster memory will do next to nothing for Phenom II?
How about we skip all that, do you have anything that does make sense, if even slightly?

---

So all the noise was for nothing? :shakes: It could be a platform issue for all we know; I mean who knows if the chipset had problems supporting three beefy gpus and 4GB Ram at 1066? Point is no one has tried this yet, so let's not be quick in condemning. PII is a good cpu for extreme overclockers; it loves cold, it overclocks like a wolfdale, and it's cheap so you can kill one every week and your finances would be relatively same. :up:

Came close to picking a 940 at the Microcenter on Sunday, but I want to wait out and see what Intel does first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

So all the noise was for nothing? :shakes: It could be a platform issue for all we know; I mean who knows if the chipset had problems supporting three beefy gpus and 4GB Ram at 1066? Point is no one has tried this yet, so let's not be quick in condemning. PII is a good cpu for extreme overclockers; it loves cold, it overclocks like a wolfdale, and it's cheap so you can kill one every week and your finances would be relatively same. :up:

Came close to picking a 940 at the Microcenter on Sunday, but I want to wait out and see what Intel does first.

---

Zucker your honestly better off waiting a tad anyway, they usually do better after the initial batches.

@ donnie nah it got a clock increase as well. 2.2gig and 400 FSB, just didn't clock to well from an enthusiast stand point. I had the 2800 as well ;) ( i think your refereing to the 3000 model or was it 2800 with lower clock higher bus )

Realistcally we may see improvements with DDR 3 as we did with intel, although thats an IMC versus non IMC comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

lets stay on topic please. im sure if i felt like it i can name everything wrong intel has done in the past yet im not.

---

More personal snipes uh?:shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chew*

Yah they did that with athlon xp if your remember, they snuck th axp 3200 in and I think it was one of 2 chips that actually supported ddr 400. I remember cuz i bought it...my 1700 jiuhb clocked better

---

That's what I replied to, so take your strawman on topic BS where it matters:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

More personal snipes uh?:shakes:

---

didn't think it was being personal by saying to stay on topic. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chew*

Zucker your honestly better off waiting a tad anyway, they usually do better after the initial batches.

@ donnie nah it got a clock increase as well. 2.2gig and 400 FSB, just didn't clock to well from an enthusiast stand point. I had the 2800 as well ;) ( i think your refereing to the 3000 model or was it 2800 with lower clock higher bus )

Realistcally we may see improvements with DDR 3 as we did with intel, although thats an IMC versus non IMC comparison.

---

Yup, you're right, it was the 3000+, not the 3200+! Note, I agree with the side that's saying higher HT plus DDR3 will make a difference in the next round of reviews for AM3. Beware, others are using personal dislikes and not common sense here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

didn't think it was being personal by saying to stay on topic. :confused:

---

It is personal when you pick out certain folks to ask to stay on topic:rolleyes: It was a reply, now what part of that do you NOT understand? If I made a statement and NOT part of reply then please make that request. If not, ask the person I replied to. That's the way it has always worked.

99% sure Phenom II X4 945 will support DDR3-1600, as will AM3 motherboards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eleeter

99% sure Phenom II X4 945 will support DDR3-1600, as will AM3 motherboards.

---

i asked about 2 hours ago and they support 1333. 1600 might come in the future tho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

i asked about 2 hours ago and they support 1333. 1600 might come in the future tho.

---

I must have missed it. Asked who? And what comes later, support from the processor itself? Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

Yup, you're right, it was the 3000+, not the 3200+! Note, I agree with the side that's saying higher HT plus DDR3 will make a difference in the next round of reviews for AM3. Beware, others are using personal dislikes and not common sense here?

---

quick correction, chew is still right tho, it was the 2800+ with the 266fsb@2.25ghz very rare as it was mostly sold by oems.

back on topic, not sure why some people see deneb as a fail, it looks like its mad fun to overclock while still being a 'decent' performer. I just got my 0850 940 yesterday and already I cant wait to leave work and go home to play with it.. :P

though I do have to say while it does boot faster than my 3.8ghz Q9450 box, it doesnt seem quite as erm 'smooth' on the desktop but its still a work in progress anyways. This is on Vista x64

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eleeter

I must have missed it. Asked who? And what comes later, support from the processor itself? Thanks.

---

i have a connection with amd. i can't say anything about when 1600 will come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

i have a connection with amd. i can't say anything about when 1600 will come.

---

So what about AM3 motherboards, they show 1600 on the box and in the specs. Is this is a case of it being unofficially being supported via overclocks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eleeter

So what about AM3 motherboards, they show 1600 on the box and in the specs. Is this is a case of it being unofficially being supported via overclocks?

---

motherboards are a completely different story. the motherboard might support 1600 but it doesn't mean the cpu will. the motherboard manufacturers know that amd will implement ddr3 1600 chips eventually and that when they do they will work in those motherboards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eleeter

So what about AM3 motherboards, they show 1600 on the box and in the specs. Is this is a case of it being unofficially being supported via overclocks?

---

It appears that way, cant imagine boards being speced as DDR3 1066/1333/1666+ if it was a standard, most companies use a * or a + with a note at the bottom that those are OC speeds....

Boards support 1600 via "OC". Just like i7 boards supports higher than 1333. Or Core 2 boards supports higher FSB etc.

Its not like a Phenom AM3 would just scream NO I AM NOT ALLOWED if you try ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

I saw your explanation and its still off by a mile or 1.6 Kilometers. Kyle made every excuse in the world for AMD Conroe did the AM2's worse than the X2's did the P4. Kyle did the same thing again when 4 X 4 launched. Maybe like Rammsteiner, Kyle is pissed AMD lost yet another round and he's depressed?

Where were the AMD leaning folks claiming to want fair and unbiased benchmarks for AM2 he gave a :up:, 4 X $ he gave a :up: and Conroe he gave yes, a :down: uh? Again, he's revised, hell, rewrote his whole Conroe conclusion when other web sites like Tech Report that you quoted, called him out.

Kyle's whatever but Phenom 2 still did worse in even the most favorable review. You do know that Intel's score were up and down as well, or were you only looking at AMD's?

For the record, I was basing my AM3 comments NOT solely on DDR3 but faster base Clock + DDR3:up: right now DDR3 on a slow HT link is like RAMBUS on a P3. P3 couldn't take advantage of the extra Bandwidth.

---

I don't think you get it.
If Kyle trashtalked intel the past, it does not make it okay for him to screw up an AMD review now.
Whether or not conroe hurt amd more than athlon hurt intel has absolutely nothing to do with this either.

If you make reviews and you are pissed and depressed because some company did not manage to make the fastes product out there and you want to be childish about it, let someone else write the review.

And seriously Donnie, cut the "Phenom did worse" crap, I really don't care. This thread is about Phenom II reviews, and Kyle screwed it up, conroe reviews and old phenom reviews have nothing to do with it.

It's blatantly apparent that Kyle is trolling his own forum and site for hits. Yet I see a lot of people complaining while they continue to feed into that crap. Vote with your mouse pads; boycott his site if you feel that strongly. A website is only as good as its most recent visitors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

...

And seriously Donnie, cut the "Phenom did worse" crap, I really don't care. This thread is about Phenom II reviews, and Kyle screwed it up, conroe reviews and old phenom reviews have nothing to do with it.

---

You still haven't produced the slightest evidence that his numbers are off by any reasonable margin.Talk is cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by User9498

It's blatantly apparent that Kyle is trolling his own forum and site for hits. Yet I see a lot of people complaining while they continue to feed into that crap. Vote with your mouse pads; boycott his site if you feel that strongly. A website is only as good as its most recent visitors.

---

QFE, best comment till now regarding [H]. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VoodooProphetII

The setup is a 9950 @ 3.3Ghz
Asus M3A79-T Deluxe
2GB Crucial Ballistix clocked at 900mhz with 4 4 4 12 timings
EVGA GTX280 (The card was a little overclocked at 640mhz core)

Far Cry 2 - 640x480 very high settings. When I set everything at it's lowest I get about 5 FPS more.

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/9...ingstj8.th.jpg

Now doesn't [H] review show more a problem with Tri-SLI scaling on a 780a NV chipset mobo, then a problem with the processor? I'm just asking, as I feel normal SLI might have worked a little better in the test looking at the results I got with a Phenom I clocked to 3.3Ghz. I know the HT is higher, but that could have been done with the review as well.

---

savantu, I posted this yesterday showing a Phenom 9950's performance when running at 3.3Ghz with only 1 x GTX280. Now with the same 640 x 480 settings in Far Cry 2 giving this 9950 an average of 72 FPS I would have expected the overclocked 3.8Ghz Phenom II result in the same game test to have been higher. Now he used tri-SLI in the review to take away the "apparent" GFX limiting factor. Looking at my numbers I am pretty sure the phenom II with a single card would have been way higher if they used a 790GX or 790FX chipset motherboard.

I know my test wasn't an exact replicate of the review but I still would like to know why I scored more average FPS then a 3.8Ghz Phenom II with Tri-SLI GTX280. And I even down clocked the card a little and it resulted in a 1 FPS drop. If I overclock the GFX it would take the FPS over 80, and if I put all the detail to the lowest setting it would climb even higher.

Who knows what the results would have been if he used crossfire x 4870's or maybe just crossfire 4870X2? Make the whole system AMD and try again...?

Have any of you noticed that the Phenom II's Far Cry 2 performance increase from low to high res?

Intel's new price cuts hopefully will influence the retail prices of these CPU's too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

You still haven't produced the slightest evidence that his numbers are off by any reasonable margin.Talk is cheap.

---

It's really not about his numbers, it's about his attitude and subjective test setup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

It's really not about his numbers, it's about his attitude and subjective test setup.

---

Sorry but you're really asking for the impossible; forget his attitude and concentrate on his numbers. Of course the setup is subjective, just like all other setups save those hand-picked by AMD for reviewers. Until we see another reviewer with a similarly configured system and different results you're blowing hot air for nothing. So this thread was actually about Kyle's attitude and not his numbers? Man, this is pathetic. :down::down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Sorry but you're really asking for the impossible; forget his attitude and concentrate on his numbers. Of course the setup is subjective, just like all other setups save those hand-picked by AMD for reviewers. Until we see another reviewer with a similarly configured system and different results you're blowing hot air for nothing. So this thread was actually about Kyle's attitude and not his numbers? Man, this is pathetic. :down::down:

---

Just reading the language in the "review" is difficult. He's blatantly made up his mind that the chip is a "failure"... Obviously at $275 he should have expected it to outoperform $1k parts, that's legitimate, right? If a reviewer cannot be objective in his conclusions or discussion, we can do without them. I'd much rather preferred to have just seen figures and results, delete the babble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miss Banana

I don't think you get it.
If Kyle trashtalked intel the past, it does not make it okay for him to screw up an AMD review now.
Whether or not conroe hurt amd more than athlon hurt intel has absolutely nothing to do with this either.

If you make reviews and you are pissed and depressed because some company did not manage to make the fastes product out there and you want to be childish about it, let someone else write the review.

And seriously Donnie, cut the "Phenom did worse" crap, I really don't care. This thread is about Phenom II reviews, and Kyle screwed it up, conroe reviews and old phenom reviews have nothing to do with it.

---

You know, it's you who doesn't get at all. I'm not saying Kyle wasn't Biased, in fact I most certainly agree he was. The point you seem to be too blind and can't see is that ALL of his reviews tilt towards seemingly whom ever is paying him the most ad dollars that cycle. Like it or not, Kyle's crappy review counts as well. Some of the reviews/ers didn't put Intel in the best light either, but that's why all of the reviews together matter.

It is about reviews of a new product and NOT only fan laced Pro AMD reviews.
The thread is "AMD Phenom II Review Thread" and NOT "AMD Phenom II Positive Cheerleading Thread". Make a thread like that and I'd not bother posting in it. Same reason I don't post but probably twice a year in the reality free zone known as the AMD sub section.

The only real thing childish here is your insistence on how much YOU can't seem to accept the results from some of the reviews. AMD LOST another round Miss and ALL of the reviews show it, so get over it.:rolleyes: Most of MY posts here have been about the reviews. The only problem here is your childishly crying when results from the reviews don't go your way. You're danged right it is about Phenom II reviews, too bad some reviews don't show the results you (and others here) wanted to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryboto

Just reading the language in the "review" is difficult. He's blatantly made up his mind that the chip is a "failure"... Obviously at $275 he should have expected it to outoperform $1k parts, that's legitimate, right? If a reviewer cannot be objective in his conclusions or discussion, we can do without them. I'd much rather preferred to have just seen figures and results, delete the babble.

---

QFT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ryboto

Just reading the language in the "review" is difficult. He's blatantly made up his mind that the chip is a "failure"... Obviously at $275 he should have expected it to outoperform $1k parts, that's legitimate, right? If a reviewer cannot be objective in his conclusions or discussion, we can do without them. I'd much rather preferred to have just seen figures and results, delete the babble.

---

I didn't even bother to read the article, but from a quote that someone posted, it seems Kyle proved gullible to AMD fanboy hypes and was disappointed at the performance. PHII can be looked at in two very different ways;

1. AMD Users: A very nice all-around upgrade option because it offers higher clocks/performance, runs cool, and consumes less power.

2. Intel Users, including people like Kyle: AMD's latest only manages to compete with lower end Intel quads, with older technology.

That is not too good for a company trying to stay above water; it is good criticism; and it'll stop if and when AMD releases a competitive product and not a product for the mid to lower segment. With PHII 940 at $275, AMD is making less money than they should IF they had released a more competitive product, and now with the Q9650 at $316 and the Q9550 at $268, there'll be even more pressure on AMD to cut prices and see their profit margins dwindle. Sometimes your best friend is the worst critic; maybe AMD engineers are listening and would show something better and stronger next time. Remember, AMD is not competing against itself; it is competing against Intel. Ironically, Intel is managing to compete against both AMD and itself at the same time; to me this speaks of the strength of a proven platform, the s775 and counter to what most think, it'll be here for a while. The next challenge for AMD engineers, is to be able to at least surpass the s775 platform with their latest or be further ridiculed for failure to close the gap.

Again I'll state. The [H] review figures is maybe not faulty, but it's more a review for the Phenom II in a Nvidia chipset motherboard running Tri-SLI, and taking AMD's performance the past couple of years it's obvious that more R&D would have gone into products you know will do well when using your tech.

I am however glad I got myself a 790FX (SB 750) motherboard to go together with the Phenom II 940 that is on it's way.

I am a fan for trying something new, and having fun with it. I have both an Intel (see my sig) and AMD system and both work pretty well, except that the AMD doesn't bench very when compaired to a C2Q system, which is why I'm getting a Phenom II.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

I didn't even bother to read the article, but from a quote that someone posted, it seems Kyle proved gullible to AMD fanboy hypes and was disappointed at the performance. PHII can be looked at in two very different ways;

1. AMD Users: A very nice all-around upgrade option because it offers higher clocks/performance, runs cool, and consumes less power.

2. Intel Users, including people like Kyle: AMD's latest only manages to compete with lower end Intel quads, with older technology.

That is not too good for a company trying to stay above water; it is good criticism; and it'll stop if and when AMD releases a competitive product and not a product for the mid to lower segment. With PHII 940 at $275, AMD is making less money than they should IF they had released a more competitive product, and now with the Q9650 at $316 and the Q9550 at $268, there'll be even more pressure on AMD to cut prices and see their profit margins dwindle. Sometimes your best friend is the worst critic; maybe AMD engineers are listening and would show something better and stronger next time. Remember, AMD is not competing against itself; it is competing against Intel. Ironically, Intel is managing to compete against both AMD and itself at the same time; to me this speaks of the strength of a proven platform, the s775 and counter to what most think, it'll be here for a while. The next challenge for AMD engineers, is to be able to at least surpass the s775 platform with their latest or be further ridiculed for failure to close the gap.

---

I somewhat agree with what you're saying but there are some things I disagree with you on.

1. Phenom II is competitive in the mainstream segment were most people buy their hardware. In the future AMD will probably get harder to match the performance of Intel's i5 or whatever it will be called but for the moment they are performing in the segment that makes money (mainstream and server).

2. I don't think AMD engineers are reading forum posts about how disappointed people are. They probably know exactly what kind of performance their CPUs have and are most likely doing the best they can to be on top of the game again. Who doesn't want to be first/best?

3. Kyle's review is bad. Yes, his numbers are probably right on that setup but doing a review isn't just scrapping up a pile of hardware and testing it, it's about doing a fair review. The review should not be angled in a certain way because it gives the impression of something being worse/better than it actually is. You shouldn't give one system advantages to prove a point. If the hardware sucks, it shouldn't matter if he used the same RAM on both setups (C2Q/PII). This is what differentiates a good review from a bad one.

I'm going to make a car analogy; Car A and B are very similar. The main difference is in the engine (representing the CPU). They are going to race each other to see which engine is the best and are revving up at the start line. Car A wins by 15m on a 402m run and engine A should be the best one. The only problem is that he used 99 octane fuel when Car B used 94 octane. Surely this isn't going to effect the performance that much, but how should we know? And by how much would Car B have lost if he used 99 octane fuel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marten_larsson

I somewhat agree with what you're saying but there are some things I disagree with you on.

1. Phenom II is competitive in the mainstream segment were most people buy their hardware. In the future AMD will probably get harder to match the performance of Intel's i5 or whatever it will be called but for the moment they are performing in the segment that makes money (mainstream and server).

2. I don't think AMD engineers are reading forum posts about how disappointed people are. They probably know exactly what kind of performance their CPUs have and are most likely doing the best they can to be on top of the game again. Who doesn't want to be first/best?

3. Kyle's review is bad. Yes, his numbers are probably right on that setup but doing a review isn't just scrapping up a pile of hardware and testing it, it's about doing a fair review. The review should not be angled in a certain way because it gives the impression of something being worse/better than it actually is. You shouldn't give one system advantages to prove a point. If the hardware sucks, it shouldn't matter if he used the same RAM on both setups (C2Q/PII). This is what differentiates a good review from a bad one.

I'm going to make a car analogy; Car A and B are very similar. The main difference is in the engine (representing the CPU). They are going to race each other to see which engine is the best and are revving up at the start line. Car A wins by 15m on a 402m run and engine A should be the best one. The only problem is that he used 99 octane fuel when Car B used 94 octane. Surely this isn't going to effect the performance that much, but how should we know? And by how much would Car B have lost if he used 99 octane fuel?

---

Excellent post! But I agree with you and Zucker2k. But there's a 3rd problem. Large OEM's know Intel price cut cycles and rely on them. Only folks like Miss Banana think this was spur of the moment.

Common sense says Intel is "Slow Boating" again:rolleyes: They did this with Conroe to sell of the last big lot of P4's and they're doing it again at an even slower pace to sell off Penryn. Please remember, X2 was clearly faster than its P4 competitor and Intel still worried more about selling P4's off. Yet, Intel took their time launching the Conroe because P4 still sold well. Intel fixed the Prescott Mini-Bake Oven problems, then cut the price to rock bottom. Second cycle cuts come within two weeks plus or Minus of April Fool's day almost every year. P4 Northwood launched on AF day.


The mainstream didn't give a flip about Synthetic or Real World benchmarks so P4 sold anyway. That fact bodes well for AMD but their price will need to be a justed down as well. IMHO, I think AMD will do well selling in the mainstream and upper budget markets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marten_larsson

3. Kyle's review is bad. Yes, his numbers are probably right on that setup but doing a review isn't just scrapping up a pile of hardware and testing it, it's about doing a fair review. The review should not be angled in a certain way because it gives the impression of something being worse/better than it actually is. You shouldn't give one system advantages to prove a point. If the hardware sucks, it shouldn't matter if he used the same RAM on both setups (C2Q/PII). This is what differentiates a good review from a bad one.

---

I think we can all agree that his methodology was poor. I think we can all agree that his tone was belligerent.

What we can't agree on, though, is that some of us would draw the same conclusions as Kyle did based on reading pretty much any Phenom II review on the net.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donnie27

The only real thing childish here is your insistence on how much YOU can't seem to accept the results from some of the reviews. AMD LOST another round Miss and ALL of the reviews show it, so get over it.:rolleyes: Most of MY posts here have been about the reviews. The only problem here is your childishly crying when results from the reviews don't go your way. You're danged right it is about Phenom II reviews, too bad some reviews don't show the results you (and others here) wanted to see.

---

so reading your reply I also can assume that the anandtech review is biased to? According to them the 920-940 is a good competitor for q8x00 and q9300-9400 and i don't see why not since they are priced in the same range, perform equal and consume equal, that's what they call marketing. Nothing more nothing less.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=3492

(or is it still just you still depressed that you did not have enough budget to buy a good k8 cpu at that point in time.... which price/performance ratio can never be transferred/referred/compared to against another time and system since that's marketing, but you keep bringing this over and over.:shakes:)

The question is when are those blue and green fanbois going to get it that both have a product and people are free to buy and think whatever they want.

thx blue fanbois for crapping on every amd thread :down:, its a review thread ..... jmke did a nice comparison of many review sites with the same conclusion as anandtech, but still some blue fanbois are very confident they are sure, only one solution for you guys go : http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...splay.php?f=59

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

so reading your reply I also can assume that the anandtech review is biased to? According to them the 920-940 is a good competitor for q8x00 and q9300-9400 and i don't see why not since they are priced in the same range, perform equal and consume equal

---

Thanks for confirming AMD's fastest quad core is now and will be until 2010-2011 at the same level of Intel's Q9300-9400, two of their slowest quad cores. I can't see any success there. AMD needs to beat the competition to regain the perfomance crown, not being barely equal.