And probably one of the more objective sites around, Tech Report.
Printable View
And probably one of the more objective sites around, Tech Report.
Oops, hadn't seen that. My bad; I'll stop now.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
lol np most people don't go outside of the amd forum. just thought id show it to people who missed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquineas
I really don't know what they are tweaking for. I was pointing out that historically, AMD brings out parts at the 'design center', and as they tweak the process, they bring out both lower power and higher speed parts. In the server world, they already announced that there will be a high speed 'SE' and a low power 'LE' added to the Shanghai line in 2009. So my assumption is the same will happen with Phenom II.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
As far as the wattage, the methods many reviewers use to measure power are measuring total board power or even total system power. Those might be interesting if you are concerned about total energy draw, but are pretty much useless for determining processor wattage, since they include chipset, RAM, and anything else on the board.
The method I use measures actual heat out from the processor. Once I get a 940 and test it. I'll be able to say for sure what the results are. Based on the few tests that gave enough information to do the calculation, the estimate of under 100W at 4G seems reasonable.
did any of the reviews push NB?
lol, You gotta be kidding. It will be closer to double that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Jimbo
you know that bumper sticker that says 'Gravity - not just a good idea, it's the law'? That's kind of what you are doing. Not to be arrogant, but this is physics, not someone's opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
A heat load that produces a 10C rise on a .1 C/W calibrated sink is 100W. Doesn't matter if it is a resistor, a light bulb, or a CPU. Since I don't have one of the Phenom II parts, I have not done any direct testing. But I do know the thermal coefficients of many popular high performance coolers, and based on the heat numbers we have seen from a number of posters, it looks like the Phenom II parts are running pretty cool with decent overclocks.
The wattage of CPUs under various load conditions is one of the areas where even experienced techies get it completely wrong - like the guy who measured 170W by taking the amp draw on the secondary MB connector and multiplying by 12. However, at least on his 3.85G run, he was using a XIGMATEK HDT S983 V2, a good cooler with .13 C/W performance. Unfortunately, he did not measure temp at the base of the cooler, and give ambient, which would have allowed us to tell what his real CPU wattage was.
So you can think what you like - but the data out on the web points to significantly lower wattage than previous phenom, and probably in the ball park of the better C2D parts (which are also very impressive). The fact that most OC requires jacking up the NB and RAM voltage (which increases their dissipation) means that getting a CPU to CPU comparison is impossible using the methods most reviewers use. Measuring power draw at the wall is easy, but also not very useful for anything other than total system load. I have verified the accuracy of the thermal gradient measurement by comparing results with instrumented VRMs, and both give the same results.
I didn't look for that, actually. Basically, all the reviews managed to get 3.6-3.8 on air.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazydiamond
Conclusions that I gathered from all the reviews:
Pros:
- Good entry price
- Strong, although not spectacular, performance increase from Agena
- Good upgrade for current AM2+ users
- Good power consumption and price when whole Dragon platform is utilized
- AMD did what they needed to do to stay viable in the market
Cons:
- Not enticing enough to make current mainstream Intel users switch
- Intel could drop prices on Q9450/Q9550 to make things hard
- Reviewers still recommend Intel setup if starting from scratch
I think a lot will be determined by price. If AMD can manage to drop prices ~$40 in the next month or two, I think we'll see the market start to even out again. I just hope Intel doesn't drop prices on the Yorkies too much. We need AMD to gain some momentum here.
Go AMD! Make me proud once again! :up:
Out of all the reviews Guru3D & hardwarecanucks were good.
Others said 3.5Ghz is the limit for Oc and that is just BS.
New review:-
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...=672218&page=1
http://www3.custompc.co.uk/reviews/6...k-edition.html
I see. Well the method I was talking about uses the formula P=I*E. So Watts is a function of current and voltage. The way you are getting wattage numbers is by reading how much heat a chip generates?Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Jimbo
I was reading some where when reivewing the i7 they where having troubles keeping stable at .36ghz so they brought it to water cooling and got 3.733ghz and yet they always Keep any AMD away from this kind of thing >_> typical bias reviews use water cooling on one and not the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
Yep as I expected most reviews just wanna say deneb/ Phenom IIis no comparison to anything intel has....gotta love bias.
The overclocking saddens me aswell they never overclock nb/ht ot htt and they couldn't get higher than 3.6 stable I wonder why perhaps because that's all intel could usually get on q6600.
Power consumption...most didn't turn on cool and quiet etc. so they inflated idle consumption.
Funny how when they did do things right it was more equal between the 2 companies processor's...to those reviewers good job for not submitting to intel's payroll.
I mean come on how does phenom II manage to lose by 20 fps+ in a gpu limited situation?
Correct - the 'I' you are measuring may or may not be going to the CPU, and likewise you don't know what 'E' actually gets supplied internally, but there is no question about the heat load.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
Here's a good write-up on heatsink characterization by some guys who actually know what they are doing:
http://www.frostytech.com/testmethod_mk2.cfm
Just got back home with my sweet little puppy 940:cool:
I'll installing it for the next hour or so (adding some more stuff while I'm at it) yoo bad my new motherboard wasn't in yet... my Gigabyte GA-MA790X-DS4 will have to do for another week or so (my dreaded friend asked me to order a graphics card from the same shop and now that one has gone from in stock to backorder all of the sudden:shrug:)
So let's see what this baby can do, I'll report back on the wattage by the way, I have a Zalman fancontroller with watt's reading for the complete system. Isn't overly accurate but I can compare it to my Phenom 9500 I use ATM...
Solid and unbiased review from Anandtech. They think that early in 2009, it is likely that Intel will drop prices to change the competitive map, and that AMD will respond with higher speed parts, and so on. All in all should be a good year for overclockers...
Wait, what? An AMD CPU recommendation?
After over two years of us recommending Intel's Core 2 lineup almost exclusively, AMD finally released a real alternative, one that's not just similarly priced, but actually higher performing than the price-competitive Intel part.
...
If Intel were to push its prices down like that, the Q9550 would compete with the Phenom II X4 940, and the Core 2 Quad Q9400 would go up against the Phenom II X4 920 instead. If this happens, the conclusion I mentioned on the first page changes. The Phenom II X4 940 can't beat the Q9550, and the 920 can't beat the Q9400. Intel has the ability to do this; it's got faster chips that are more expensive and has just enjoyed 2+ years of unchallenged competition. The Intel from the Pentium 4 days may have let AMD launch Phenom II unchecked, but today's Intel is much more...dynamic.
The take away is that today Phenom II competes with the Q9400 and the Q8300, but by the end of this month that may change to the Q9550 and Q9400.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492
I wouldn't really call that a recommendation for Phenom II. It sounds more like what Intel can do to make it look like a less competitive chip.
You know it's gotta be good if Anand likes it. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by YukonTrooper
The thing is, you can get a Phenom II 920 as a combo deal with 790GX for $294 right now. That is a great crossfire board with incredible onboard video to boot. Intel is going to have to do some HARDCORE price slashing to compete with that value...
Are people really happy with ph2? I mean not even slightly disappointed? Read the comments on anandtech and others and it seems that most are disappointed, It still lacks clock for clock against all Intel quads and the overclocking and power consumption dont live up to the hype.
IoC mentioned that the production parts had minor improvements from the ES parts - Anandtech seems to confirn that.Quote:
Originally Posted by iandh
In fact, the latest retail steppings that AMD displayed this past week showed significant improvements in overclocking headroom compared to the press samples we utilized. Our 940 topped out at 3.9GHz, which is not bad, but after reviewing AMD’s results and seeing some early retail numbers on the forums, the expectation level for air-cooling is now set to the 4.1GHz range with the 920 hitting 3.8~3.9GHz on the right motherboard.
I'm sure people who were hoping for an i7 killer are disappointed - but those with more realistic expectations (that AMD would produce a part which is price competitive with equivalent C2D parts, and offers good overall platform advantage for OC) should be pleased with the results.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
The advantage for buyers is big, too - wider choice and lower costs for all but the extreme upper end of the market.
I doubt Intel will take pricing action on i7, but they will probably improve Penryn value, and may also extend the life of those parts, which is a good thing IMO.
I don't think we can say yet how the power will play out. C2D had great power management which could be improved without much work, where Phenom was a hog for sure. Phenom II might be in the same power range as C2D - time will tell. AM3 may make a difference too...
I guess the "power consumption" depends on how you measure it. SOmeone used a temp probe and some elementary physics to get a pretty decent number;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
There are a whole lot of results out there now, and eve if it's not i7 killers they've released I'd say AMD did an A-W-E-S-O-M-E job - these chips are HUGE improvements over Agena, and that's the only fair comparison. The fact that they can compete with Intel quads is also a good sign.
I don't really see why Anandtech's conclusion should be so important, either. it seems obvious to me that that's just some Intel fan's opinion. "If Intel chooses to do this and that"... well, that's not the case TODAY, so its' a useless comment. The fact is that the Deneb platform gives you alot of performance for your $$$.
I agree with "Uncle" and "Knopfler".
PHII shoud be compared to PH1, and as such it is a great step in the right direction.
920/940 *do* compare great with current Intel C2Q (Q6600/Q9300/Q9400).
For anybody wanting to build/buy a new quad-system there is no reason to prefere/choose Intel over AMD.
For those already having an AM2+ rig the extra cost of purchasing a 920 as an upgrade is a matter of taste really, and perhaps support the "Green team" (both AMD and environment.. as in saved energy). :)
So the new top end AMD competing with the q9300-q9400 is enough? I remember that when people suggested this months ago they got a serious flaming, People expected more. To be fair for the price deneb is ok but I was hopping for some competition in the high end, I find it hard to get excited about a product that would have been good 1.5 years ago.
I agree - this seems to be a very good part.Quote:
Originally Posted by knopflerbruce
Anandtech had an interesting chart on OC - and they pointed out that the production parts would probably move Phenom II 940 to 4.1G or more.
But even using their ES they got the following, which was done using STOCK cooler, and shows the Phenom II 940 looking pretty good:
Processor ............ Stock Voltage . Overvolt. % Increase . Vcore
AMD Phenom II 940 .. 3.2GHz ......... 3.9GHz ...... 30% ..... 1.52V
AMD Phenom 9950 BE 3.03GHz ....... 3.38GHz ..... 30% ..... 1.45V
Intel Core i7-920 ..... 3.83GHz ....... 4.0GHz ....... 50% ..... 1.35V
Intel Core 2 Q9550 ... 3.48GHz ....... 3.91GHz ..... 38%...... 1.35V
seems like a joke but jimbo does know what he is talking about. he is way above all of us in that field.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
lol and everyone tells me that frosty tech sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Jimbo
the thing here is that most of us are enthusiasts. we buy the parts because we like them. for more mainstream users they might look at the graphs and think differently and choose intel over amd but most of us here don't need absolute performance. most people just like tweaking and messing around with the systems to get more performance. so deneb is a dream for amd users. im really happy with the power consumption since it blows the original phenom out of the water and i bet running it at 3.5ghz would produce the same or less power than my phenom 9600 does at 2.3. it does stay really close to the core 2's power consumption even with the imc and large l3 cache too. and the fact that cool and quiet can reduce the clocks down to 800 mhz and the below 1V is just nice for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag