Printable View
Thats nothing new and not really due to Phenom 2. Its the regular pricecut by Intel. You can see most of the changes here. i7 920 is the "competitor". Not Phenom 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zakiruz
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=208007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
seem people skip over this NB/IMC speed.Quote:
Preliminary Overclocking
I really was more displeased with myself than the actual processor in overclocking Phenom II. Even after spending hours playing with the processor, I found it very hard to break the 250HTT barrier. Afterward, I realized I was running the memory controller at 2.54GHz with "low" IMC volts which may have been a frequency bottleneck.
Sadly, I cannot comment on the temperatures I was hitting or what it takes to hit 4GHz, yet. Once this article is published, then I'll be a bit more liberal with voltages and really start bashing down clock barriers. I have plans on testing with air heatsinks, dry ice, a cascade, and liquid nitrogen, all the tools in an avid overclocker's arsenal.
phenom II doing good at 1920 x1200...?Quote:
Wrap Up and Conclusion
For the enthusiast and amateur overclocker, Phenom II is almost a gift in a black box. With the Black Edition Phenom II X4 940 running ~$300 with shipping, you are getting a very flexible processor that just craves to be tweaked and overclocked. It may have trouble standing up against Core i7 in sheer CPU benchmarks like Cinebench and wPrime, but for 3D applications you just might see a few surprises from Phenom II.
Some people think that GTA IV is the most CPU intensive game out there right now.... let's see how Phenom II stakc up against Core 2 Quad in this game:
http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/2772/gta42qs9.png
http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/g...png/1/w700.png
Actuallly in fair high resolution benches i7 and phenom II did well.
Some reviews show it as abysmal in some games and at high resolutions which doesnt make sense.
Also a big issue would be having a working board with new bios for the processor I think...I see no reason why phenom II would lag behind other alot in high resolution most I've seen it's doing better than core 2 probably because of the imc.
more like the WCGE (worse coded game ever), imho GTA4 isn't representative for anything. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
Even on a 3ghz quad it runs like :banana::banana::banana::banana:.. barely in the playable fps range and looks like crap compared to other games...
Good games that show scaling in with quads -> Supreme Comander, UT3, Farcry 2. :yepp:
nice to see that you say something is coded well because amd does pretty well at it and then you say to pick games that always work best on intel. :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
the gta4 benchmarks prove my point. that at lower resolutions intel does better but at higher resolutions amd seems to do better. yesterday everyone was saying that 1204x768 is the best resolution to bench on because it shows cpu performance..........
Well according to this graph.. a P2 920 is on par with a Q9550... and both arn't exactly in playable fps ranges. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
I call it :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty coded, cause if compared to crysis it looks like crap and runs even worse then crysis. :rofl:
Look where the Phenom 1 is in GTA4...Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
pcgh.de looks to be abit odd graphs..
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,67...ore_i7/?page=5
It honestly look bugged.
what about it? phenom I is the worst of the quads and it seems that gta4 favors quads over dual cores. i don't think memory bandwidth has anything to do with this. cause if so wouldn't the x2 be better than the c2d?
see 4 yourself:Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=802&p=0
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3...warheadgn9.pnghttp://img296.imageshack.us/img296/5856/fc2lx0.png
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/3103/gta4kx6.pnghttp://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9317/ut3mc0.png
How about Left 4 Dead then?Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,67...ore_i7/?page=4
what about left for dead? obviously it doesn't work well with the phenom II. consdering that overclocking it reduces performance by a pretty big amount. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
edit: http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...omii940/15.htm looking at other reviews for left 4 dead its the same story again. phenom II's performance compared to intel increases at higher resolutions.
advantage of phenom II over phenom I in 1024x768: 6.67%, in 1280x1024: 8% in 1680x1050: 3.28%, in 1920x1200: 5.88%. if the lowest resolutions showed absolute cpu performance you would think that as the resolution went up the performance of phenom II over phenom I would decrease over time which it does not.
It means that trying to say anything about CPU performance when something is clearly GPU limited doesn't prove much of anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
I tend to disagree. As rk7p5 said, this Christmas I tested my systems, Kentsfield and Agena, clock for clock (all real world apps), and based on them, I would say that PhII 940 is between 9550 and 9650, and PhII 920 between 9450 and 9550. Iīll include Deneb and Yorkfield as soon as possible, aren't in house yet ;-) http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=213642Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
I read like every review on the net and i was pretty astonished by the big discuptancy in results :shakes:
You can find review PhII 2 above Q9550 in a place and far behind in another same bench same settings :eek:
That's pretty incredible and for either some receive big bucks to praise PhII or some don't knoww how to correctly setup an AMD system after 3 years of Intel Core domination:rolleyes:
I just love this tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
As if its so hard to put a cpu/ram/gfx card into a mobo and install a os.
Oc benching is another story but you can't do much wrong with out of the box (aka stock) stuff...
edit:
omfg i just read the HardOCP review...
WTF !!!111 :eek:
Did Hell just froze over and im seeing this correct that Kyle Bennett calls P2 a looser. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle Bennett
yes this is very strange, a lot of different results... far cry 2 is one good example.
Easy, when i point the review I was talking about all games in that review, not only fear. Check-out the other games ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
The AMD roadmap is allways changing. 15 days ago and AMD made changes. And as far as I know not to be on roadmap donīt say nothing.
As far as i know AMD still have de Phenom "Stars"/FX to come and will have 6-core opteron also in midle of this year (H2), not final 2009 like shintay said. Itīs H2 for the 6-core:
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...=7224&Itemid=1Quote:
We've seen an updated server roadmap where AMD places its six-core Istanbul processor for the second half of 2009. At first, AMD internally said that there will be some samples in late 2008, but 2H 2009 is the time of volume production.
The new six-core CPU will have 6MB L3 cache and DDR2 support, powered by HT-3 and AMD Virtualization support. Of course, this CPU will be developed in 45nm and it looks just like Shanghai 45nm CPU but with two additional cores.
So AMD can do somethings to counter i5 by Q3. One 3.2-3.4Ghz CPU? Possible...
A 6-core CPU? Also possible...
Everything is open.
And in Q4 32nm Westmere is due.Quote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
Ben Brown also did an awesome comparison between agena and deneb. Ipc wise deneb is 10% to 15% faster then agena, putting it between yorkfield and i7. Bang for the buck, you can't beat amd atm.:up:
http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/43...omparison.html :yepp:
that strongly depends on the apps, in rendering deneb is ~5% faster but is some games its sometimes up to 20% faster, sometimes its not faster at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by rk7p5
But calling it 10-15% faster on avarage ipc wise is a bit off an overstatement.
I don't understand why you try to bash me on this :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
I speak sincerely.
Just compare results all over the net and you'll see the mess.
Cause all this company A pays site B to rate product C better is BS, it may happen in one or two cases, but saying that half sites get payed and the other half is to stupid to set up a computer right is ridiculous.
You know sarcasm?
I use smilie like this ;)
You can find yourselve a reason for mess up in result because it's abvious there is mess up.
With ATI and Nvidia even it's numbers are a little ainaccurate you know one win this benchmark etc...
Here with see a clear win, a clear tie or a clear lose for the same benchmark with same settings and with the same system spec. Thats nearly impossible!
That's why those threads are like this, flamewars threads coz by picking the "right" you can show the truth to everyone.
if you are buying a laptop then yes it might be. westmere for laptops is set for late 2009 to january 2010 while the desktop versions are set for first half of 2010 for the high end and last half for the mainstream and low end. the high ends won't be competing with deneb and will actually just be competing with nehalem. plus bulldozer is set for 2011 which will include 12 cores and will be the core used for fusion so we could be seeing graphics in the cpus by then. so even though you are saying how westmere is going to destroy amd look at the big picture, bulldozer might come right after westmere and with bulldozer supporting 50% more cores than westmere and possibilities of integrated graphics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga