Phenom II Review Summaries.....

This might help us, as its clear that each and every "Expert" review site came to different conclusions.... some are objective, some are downright skewed

Please put in summaries of ones you read.

What I read so far:

XBit Labs: Pretty not believable, its almost like they manipulated their test data to tell a specific story. They didn't slam AMD or PII, but they did throw it under the bus ultimately. They tried to paint the picture that it is ok, but still not as good as the "competition". They only used a 790GX

Fudzilla: Pretty balanced, it didn't seem like they were trying for any specific conclusion. They did not compare it i7, only to high end QC2D. Also used a 790GX

Tweaktown: Their usual total garbage. I don't know why I even keep them bookmarked. Here is a direct quote from them "Phenom II seems to be lacking any real CPU power, even when compared to the Core 2 series and is certainly much less than Core i7." Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up.

Hot Hardware: Pretty rational, these guys don't often take sides. Their review was pretty balanced, and they respected the effort put into the product. Also used a 790GX

Guru3D: Pretty realistic, with an especially sober conclusion. Balanced. Also used a 790GX

Legit Reviews: Reasonably balanced, had a reasonably open minded conclusion. Also used a 790GX


Feel free to add more!!!

I like the Planet3Dnow review. Its very fair and I really like the conclusions:
Deneb@3GHz(940BE) - 100%
Yorkfield@3GHz(Q9650) - 102.7%
Nahalem@3GHz(i7 940) - 125.3%
and the summary: best Price/Performance buy in the class :).

Yeah i think too that PII is best bang for buck in month or so when cream price goes away.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

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

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

---

So they are the guys posting in the XS news forum? :confused:

It's worse. The actual subtitle of the review is a rant. They're bashing it before they even get to the body.

i stopped reading hardocp a long time ago. enough said. i can't wait to get a 920. i might change my mind and go with the high end 940. i'm also trying to go green this year. decisions decisions :(.

XBit Labs didn't look at how the Nb changes from a 200mhz ? they did it with agena ?

i think some guy at amd put out the wrong word. because every review i have read they think dragon includes a 790gx. and i doubt amd would put a integrated graphics chipset in as their top of the line. most reviews also seem to have obvious errors in places. lots of them on the system specs pages.

AMD sent the Phenom II review samples out with 790GX boards. They may as well have added a sachet of fail sauce. :P

I can understand comparisons between C2Q using a 790GX board because that comparison is very price sensitive, and the reviewer should be looking to see which platform offers better value for money.

If they're going to compare the Phenom II against the Core i7 chips then they should be using an FX motherboard. It's like saying "We compared this Honda Civic against the Porshe 911. We filled the Honda Civic with deisel, and the Porshe 911 with performance petrol". I'm not saying the Phenom II is an i7 beater, but it was a rather inept move of AMD to send out samples with a GX board.

Not really. Good 790GX boards are often better overclockers than their 790FX counterparts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

Not really. Good 790GX boards are often better overclockers than their 790FX counterparts.

---

Are you meaning that a well built 790GX board is better than a poorly built 790FX board, or are you meaning that there's something in the specifications of the GX board that's better than the FX?

decent/fair review from anandtech and promise more in depth review

AMD Phenom II X4 940 & 920: A True Return to Competition
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=3492

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

Not really. Good 790GX boards are often better overclockers than their 790FX counterparts.

---

I think exactly the opposite thing. Good 790FX boards are much better than good 790GX boards. I think M3A32-MVP, DQ6, M2R, K9A2 Platinum should overclock PhII higher than the newer 790GX boards. The "old" boards have been designed for extreme OC of the older Phenoms, but their OC potential was poor(of the cpu's and of the boards because of SB600) and 790GX came as a solution with SB750 lowering the production costs of the boards. M3A79-T Deluxe and the DFI SB750 solutions should perform similar to the old boards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

Not really. Good 790GX boards are often better overclockers than their 790FX counterparts.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuen4y

I think exactly the opposite thing. Good 790FX boards are much better than good 790GX boards. I think M3A32-MVP, DQ6, M2R, K9A2 Platinum should overclock PhII higher than the newer 790GX boards. The "old" boards have been designed for extreme OC of the older Phenoms, but their OC potential was poor(of the cpu's and of the boards because of SB600) and 790GX came as a solution with SB750 lowering the production costs of the boards. M3A79-T Deluxe and the DFI SB750 solutions should perform similar to the old boards.

---

These two points of view are one of the puzzling things about this review cycle of the PII. There were NO 790FX reviews that I could find.

I don't believe that there would be much difference in baseline performance between a 790GX and 790FX, although I have no idea if that's true. Many of us (including me) have both, and maybe we could try and determine if there's any truth to it. But it looks like the marketing guys at AMD had lots of control here, as they got lots of the "expert" review sites to talk about "Dragon" more than the new processor in many cases, which includes the 790GX.

As far as OC performance, it would appear to me (although I'm clearly not that bright), that most of the 790FX/SB750 boards are somewhat more robust in the BIOS department and AOD integration, although I could be completely wrong.

But it does befuddle me that AMD completely ignored the 790FX/SB750 board partners who stuck with them during the dark days. Many of us have had spectacular results with the Asus M3A79-T and the Foxconn A79A-S, as well as the perenially strange DFI LP DK 790FXB-M2RSH. It looks like our friends at Gigabyte have simply FLOODED the "expert" reviewers with their DS4H board, with the MSI board showing up occasionally.

I dunno, seems strange to me. The Intel boards were ALL X48 or X58 boards, which is their high end. :shrug::bs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dng

i stopped reading hardocp a long time ago. enough said. i can't wait to get a 920. i might change my mind and go with the high end 940. i'm also trying to go green this year. decisions decisions :(.

---

Oh why don't you love the articles on [T]ard. BFG BFG BUY BFG BUY a BFG card we have a special discount for "just" 400 people, ASUS ASUS INTEL ASUS BFG BFG

Legit:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/860/1/

Quote:

---

"f you are looking for a new CPU for an upcoming build, or looking to upgrade from an AMD AM2 or AM2+ platform, the Phenom II AM2+ CPUs may be a very good choice for you. Considering how, in many cases, simply swapping the processor could cut power consumption by a third while increasing performance by 15-25%, it's hard to pass this up. Phenom II will definitely warrant another article exploring its overclocking potential so if you are on the fence about it, maybe that will be able to sway you."

---

well at least i know i can get better power consumption numbers since those all include a wasted integrated graphics. amd had to have some reasoning behind sending them 790gx boards because i myself believe the fx are superior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

well at least i know i can get better power consumption numbers since those all include a wasted integrated graphics. amd had to have some reasoning behind sending them 790gx boards because i myself believe the fx are superior.

---

Yup, scratching my head over that whole thing :shrug:

idk but i think theres somethin behind it because they used 790gx boards at the preview events too

probly because they care nothing about selling 790FX anymore but have invested allot into 790GX so would have done them no good to use FX to show off the platform.

my guess is that amd believes both boards are pretty much the same thing and the gx ones are the most recent so those are the ones they show off. the fx and gx boards are very similar but i believe the fx ones are higher quality.

790FX = 65nm chipset

790GX = 55nm chipset

Unless the new 790FX w/SB750 boards have been shrunk to 55nm, then they are still using the old northbridge, and from a marketing standpoint, you do not want to market your new chip with an old chipset. Not only that, the power consumption between the FX and GX is in the GX's favor even with the gfx enabled if im remembering the review i found that compared the two.

Face it the GX is the new fangled chipset that they are pushing with a new chip, and AMD is trying to stay away from its old and considered failed Phenom launch chipset. Sure the FX might be better but being 65nm costs more to produce hence the obvious price jump when you hit the FX boards.

IMO as long as it OC's well on a GX and the GX is in my price range and is stable im happy. If an FX gets another 30mhz out of the chip vs a GX that isnt that big of a deal. Having onboard gfx isnt all bad, it means they actually have to put a decent heat sink on the NB where some of the FX boards seem to be lacking *cough* DFI *cough*

Everyone has tested with 790GX 'cos all 790GX mobos have SB750, and to constitute Dragon platform SB750 is must... besides, I must repeat once again: 790GX is 55nm part and has better power consumption compared to 65nm build 790FX! In idle 790GX consumes somewhere around 1W!

In the last couple of months 790GX mobos have received some nice BIOS tuning and basically all of them are top notch build in terms of quality and features, so they're HighEnd mobos, regardless of the present IGP...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nedjo

Everyone has tested with 790GX 'cos all 790GX mobos have SB750, and to constitute Dragon platform SB750 is must... besides, I must repeat once again: 790GX is 55nm part and has better power consumption compared to 65nm build 790FX! In idle 790GX consumes somewhere around 1W!

In the last couple of months 790GX mobos have received some nice BIOS tuning and basically all of them are top notch build in terms of quality and features, so they're HighEnd mobos, regardless of the present IGP...

---

yea i know the gx is 55nm but still i believe the fx boards have better quality. and according to SOF phenom II and ACC is pointless because it does nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

yea i know the gx is 55nm but still i believe the fx boards have better quality. and according to SOF phenom II and ACC is pointless because it does nothing.

---

The only advantage FX boards have over gx is 6 layer PCB and a larger power scheme which could be contributed to the higher tdp of both the chipset and phenom 1.

Boards that you thought were buggy and problematic with phenom 1 might be rare diamonds in the ruff with phenom 2 etc possibly the jigabyte gx board ;)

I'd be really interested to hear peoples thoughts and impressions of the gigabyte GX board once they drop a PH II in it.

PhII is pretty much what the original phenom should have been...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Klarko

PhII is pretty much what the original phenom should have been...

---

It may well have been - remember they had to scrap the design and everything one year into it. Basically -1 year right off the bat. :(

Course back then it had the cooler name of K8L.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Klarko

PhII is pretty much what the original phenom should have been...

---

thats what i have been saying. a year ago i was saying phenom I is pretty much a prototype. the real one isn't ready yet. because of the whole barcelona delay and everything amd kicked their own ass with k10. if they get their act together their with their next core design then its questionable who would be the performance leader amd or intel.

lol i bet i get flamed for this.

so what are you guys thinking now, does it look like the GX boards are going to be the better ones to go with as long as the IGP is turned off for heat issues?

well i'm going to be jumping from a 6400+ BE X2 to a Phenom II 940 X4, anyone interested in BASE Superpi or other comparisons?? if you tell me what to do I will sure as hell do it for ya if anyone is interested, if it is in my powa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mav451

It may well have been - remember they had to scrap the design and everything one year into it. Basically -1 year right off the bat. :(

Course back then it had the cooler name of K8L.

---

What happened? Any links? I don't remember . . :shrug:

Wasn't K8L a mobile design?

I will hopefully write you all a short review of my own personal experience from an average user standpoint of an average pII 940. I have some G.Skill Pi series RAM (2GB sticks), and also some 1GB sticks of Mushkin that I will try out with it. And the CPU will be in an Asus M3A79-T motherboard with the 790FX and SB750 combo. So it is technically a dragon platform, but still has the 790FX chip.

I will run SuperPi, 3dMark 05 and 06, a RAR extraction test, and a video encoding test.

I only have 1 CPU to bench it against, so I will be using both my new pII, and an older Opteron 12010HE overclocked to 3GHz. I will also test the pII at its highest stable overclock against the Opteron at 3.1GHz to see what the difference is at the higher clock speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EniGmA1987

I will hopefully write you all a short review of my own personal experience from an average user standpoint of an average pII 940. I have some G.Skill Pi series RAM (2GB sticks), and also some 1GB sticks of Mushkin that I will try out with it. And the CPU will be in an Asus M3A79-T motherboard with the 790FX and SB750 combo. So it is technically a dragon platform, but still has the 790FX chip.

I will run SuperPi, 3dMark 05 and 06, a RAR extraction test, and a video encoding test.

I only have 1 CPU to bench it against, so I will be using both my new pII, and an older Opteron 12010HE overclocked to 3GHz. I will also test the pII at its highest stable overclock against the Opteron at 3.1GHz to see what the difference is at the higher clock speed.

---

this is the kind of stuff i like to see, more "real world scenario" benchmarks and comparisons.

Well synthetic bencharks are hardly "real world" :P But ya I get what you mean. No cherry picking for me, just your average hardware off the egg. I will try running CoD4 and AoC for some testing as well. That is more real world examples of gaming performance.

So gx boards are better for overclocking now?

I thought because some fx boards had 8+2 phase they were better for overclocking....I'm confused.

I was also confused at why the gx motherboards were cheaper with built in graphics....but if they can shrink those why not shrink the fx line?

lets wait a bit for real testers to get there phenomII. i laughed at most of the initial reviews because of how they were testing. in my opinion the 790fx boards are going to come to the forefront once we all have our cpu's.
i have the foxconn a79a-s and the dfi m2r and if acc is trully meaningless then i think the dfi is going to be superior in all aspects. i was amazed with hardocp's review the most. kyle could not even get 1066 ram to work so he tested with ram at 800 while all the intels were at 1066 or higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caveman787

So gx boards are better for overclocking now?

I thought because some fx boards had 8+2 phase they were better for overclocking....I'm confused.

I was also confused at why the gx motherboards were cheaper with built in graphics....but if they can shrink those why not shrink the fx line?

---

It is indeed a mess. The marketing folks have run amok, and now even the faithful are confused.

The FX chip was designed for "greater" overall versatility because it has more PCIe capacity. The GX is an enhanced 780G chip with more PCIe capacity, but still not as much as the FX.

It would appear that the chipset guys at AMD/ATI realized that maybe the FX was overkill and lost interest in it and turned to the GX instead. There is also the question of whether so many people have been laid off at AMD, that the folks who had this whole thing sorted out are all gone, so the thing is sort of on autopilot.

Pricing is a random activity. The chips don't really cost any more or less to produce if they have graphics on them or not.... gates are basically free at this point so you can jamb as much stuff as you can fit on the die, and it will basically cost almost the same amount to produce, so retail pricing is "made up" based on how you're trying to position things.

The motherboard guys then take the raw chips, and produce the final product based on what THEIR marketing people believe to be true, which may or may not be the same as the AMD people.

Whats worse is, the initial Phenom cycle was a financial debacle for many of the faithful motherboard manufacturers that had made money with AMD previously. Gigabyte alone put out a TON of different AMD "spider" boards, plus Asus and all the rest, just to have the processor story go down in serious flames, which caused sales of the "Spider" motherboards to be extremely soft.

Then, when the B3 comes out, it barely helps. They are working on the mysterious SB750, and decide to release it along with the reworked 780G, and they call it a 790GX, which further confuses everyone cuz its NOT part of the 790 family at all. Then only DFI, Asus and Foxconn do a 790FX/SB750 board, and even those don't do that well.

Now, with everyone laid off, and short attention spans raging, the 790GX is the new best thing.

In reality, most of this stuff is all the same. How the Mobo manufacturers develop and refine their respective BIOS and power their boards has become the real battle ground.

AMD has returned to the Value play, while Intel, after 4 or so terrible years as the also ran, now is the performance play.

I'd say that an adequately powered 790GX board would perform much the same as an adequately powered 790FX board, assuming both use the SB750. Indeed, my own personal experiences have born that out. I have seriously spent WAYYYY to much money on my Asus M3A79-T (790FX) rig, and just hacked together an Asus M3A78-T (790GX) machine, and they both perform quite well. The 78-T actually feels faster, while the 79-T performs great in games and benchmarks.

All in all, I could use any of these parts for anything and probably be perfectly happy. If you are prosperous enough to buy twin 4870X2 cards, then the FX will probably be a better bet for full PCIe crossfire communications with the 4 GPU cores. But otherwise, it probably makes very little difference.


That was a ridiculously long answer to a simple question :rofl:

I dont care if you can turn off the IGP or not, I dont want it on my motherboard period. Took me forever to finally accept onboard sound.
I

I welcome it, another shot at a WR, looking forward to putting a DI/LN2 pot on the NB ;)

If there is no use for ACC then there should be no problems with SB600 boards aside from the Raid controller

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck

If there is no use for ACC then there should be no problems with SB600 boards aside from the Raid controller

---

I've not heard that though.

I've seen that good clocks are possible -without- ACC. However if ACC allowed the Phenom I to go higher with the magic tweaks then logic says Phenom II should benefit too (although to what level is unknown). However I remember reading somewhere that ACC doesn't work on Phenom II yet, and as the new AMD Overdrive has not been released yet (unless it's in beta) then it's possible Phenoms have some sort of ACC already built in.

Another thing is the independent clocking business. As I understand AMD OD allows different clock levels on different cores. To me that suggests that I may have 2 cores that can hit 4K, a core that can do 3.8K and a core that can do 4.3K. I'd want to make if I'm playing a game that can only use a single core that nothing goes on the 4.3K core other than that game. I've no idea if SB750 is needed for independent clock setting. Nor do I know if it works like I imagine it. I'm just chattering away here :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nanohead

Pricing is a random activity. The chips don't really cost any more or less to produce if they have graphics on them or not.... gates are basically free at this point so you can jamb as much stuff as you can fit on the die, and it will basically cost almost the same amount to produce, so retail pricing is "made up" based on how you're trying to position things.

That was a ridiculously long answer to a simple question :rofl:

---

Might have been long, but it was an interesting read.

Sadly I think there's a ring of truth to it. We all know that R&D has to be paid for somehow, so it gets lumped onto the highest end stuff, especially at launch.

For all we know the GX is just a shrunk FX with integrated graphics and a couple of 'bonus' features disabled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halk

I've not heard that though.

I've seen that good clocks are possible -without- ACC. However if ACC allowed the Phenom I to go higher with the magic tweaks then logic says Phenom II should benefit too (although to what level is unknown). However I remember reading somewhere that ACC doesn't work on Phenom II yet, and as the new AMD Overdrive has not been released yet (unless it's in beta) then it's possible Phenoms have some sort of ACC already built in.

Another thing is the independent clocking business. As I understand AMD OD allows different clock levels on different cores. To me that suggests that I may have 2 cores that can hit 4K, a core that can do 3.8K and a core that can do 4.3K. I'd want to make if I'm playing a game that can only use a single core that nothing goes on the 4.3K core other than that game. I've no idea if SB750 is needed for independent clock setting. Nor do I know if it works like I imagine it. I'm just chattering away here :P

---

The phenom 1 can clock all cores seperatly with all chipsets. Or am I miss understanding what your saying?

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/n...ob/Capture.jpg

Don't see why people are complaining about the GX so much. At stock it makes jack and :banana::banana::banana::banana: difference.
Its as expected, almost as fast as a Penryn, close enough that in most cases you couldn't tell with the naked eye.
So AMD wins on bang for buck. BUT the big problem is, is that the Penryn die is smaller than the Deneb die, so intel can afford to undercut Phenom 2 if they want.
On a side note, ffs AMD really needs to bloody lift their cache density. I hope they aren't reusing the the same cells from 65nm for the 6 core designs too :/

nanohead, the chips only cost the same to produce if they are pad limited afaik. If they aren't then it is definitely a savings to make a NB without integrated.

Curious about independent clocking of cores too, Anandtech said that AMD has locked all the cores(i.e they must all drop in speed, not just 1,2, or 3) for CnQ for Phenom 2. I dont know if you can set them at different speeds outside that? Has someone tested this already?

I own three AMD systems and a high end AMD graphics card, but truth be told, AMD's processors are not that competitive clock for clock. If you through out price it makes no sense to buy one. As a consumer I want AMD to prosper,it's do to the success of the athlon 64 that we enjoy the prices of cpu's that we have now. With that said, the last 2 cpu's released from Intel have out preformed the last 2 cpu's released from AMD, and no matter how you word it that fact remains


Just my opinion: Menace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raiderman

I dont care if you can turn off the IGP or not, I dont want it on my motherboard period. Took me forever to finally accept onboard sound.
I

---

:confused:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by menace2society

I own three AMD systems and a high end AMD graphics card, but truth be told, AMD's processors are not that competitive clock for clock. If you through out price it makes no sense to buy one. As a consumer I want AMD to prosper,it's do to the success of the athlon 64 that we enjoy the prices of cpu's that we have now. With that said, the last 2 cpu's released from Intel have out preformed the last 2 cpu's released from AMD, and no matter how you word it that fact remains


Just my opinion: Menace

---

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

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

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

double post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck

probly because they care nothing about selling 790FX anymore but have invested allot into 790GX so would have done them no good to use FX to show off the platform.

---

Or because most people choose to buy a 4870x2 over 2 4870s so the demand for the 790FX is not in as high demand especially since it has a higher cost and bigger hotter chip.

I'd like to see more reviews with the 780a

aaaaaaaaand back on topic we have.....

toms hardware is also good

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

i like the energy efficiency :-)

It's all about marketing.

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mats

It's all about marketing.

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbone8ty

aaaaaaaaand back on topic we have.....

toms hardware is also good

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

i like the energy efficiency :-)

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daveburt714

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben_Brown

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tbone8ty

aaaaaaaaand back on topic we have.....

toms hardware is also good

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

i like the energy efficiency :-)

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chew*

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russ_64

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marten_larsson

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mats

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrcmtl

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

:confused:

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



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

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

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

---

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


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

Just my opinion: Menace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by menace2society

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by menace2society

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daveburt714

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

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck

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

---

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

Barton 2500s and Barton Mobiles were great for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben_Brown

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by menace2society

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


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

Just my opinion: Menace

---

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

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

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



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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck

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

---

Hear Hear!! :up::up: I agree completely. I started with the K6-2 300s, and rowed my way through just about every CPU since (both AMD and Intel, as well as Cyrix).

There seems to be an EXPECTATION that everything will overclock to 8Ghz, and otherwise, it is a failure. A total lack of reality and maturity in this point of view. Ridiculous... Some of these "expert" review sites are simply filled with ignoramuses. It just goes to show how ANYONE can get a domain, and put up a site, and start writing opinion.... its just horrific how many people believe this balderdash as fact. :shocked:

To be quite truthful I think sub $300.00 for the 940 BE is a Steal:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

To be quite truthful I think sub $300.00 for the 940 BE is a Steal:)

---

One of the main things people forget is that it is a fairly cheap chip with an unlocked multi :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

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

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

---

to me it still fits. you can buy the Phenom II for $270 and a $100 board and tweak it to perform on par with a $1000 CPU and $200 board. Regardless of being Intel or AMD. Its still buying lower end cheaper parts and tweaking to match higher end high dollar parts.

Also good chance that these are not high binned CPU's. The higher binned CPU's may be for AM3's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nanohead

Some of these "expert" review sites are simply filled with ignoramuses.

---

Almost all of them are also simply mult clocking, which will never get max performance

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...d-920-review/7


This is what happens when you bench a phenom 2 against a core 2 quad with ddr2 ram

The difference is small but still difference.
BUt....
LOOK at he difference in power consumption of the 9950 vs 940 !!!:eek:
I need a new cpu now(power bill coming:shrug:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noki

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...d-920-review/7


This is what happens when you bench a phenom 2 against a core 2 quad with ddr2 ram

---

nice review, look how the lower htt also hurts pII results in memory bw tests. Full htt speeds of am3 cpus will give a nice extra "kick"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

One of the main things people forget is that it is a fairly cheap chip with an unlocked multi :clap:

---

Agreed. What I like about the PII 940/920 is the CPU itself cost about the same amount as a good Core i7 motherboard give or take a few bucks. It also doesn't require DDR III nor a new motherboard. The Intel Core i7 maybe be faster, but AMD has great price/performance value. Hell, we can even use our old AM2+ mobos for AM3 chips and relax until DDRIII gets cheaper and new mobos come out. I like to upgrade slowly and with AMD you just can't beat them. Instead of purchasing the planned 9850 I may add a few more bucks to the equation and get the 920 and call it a day until AM3's come out.:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben_Brown

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

---

1.Personal experience?
2.Or in general?

If 1 you fail at failing. :)
If 2 please elaborate (links).

The only reason I went for DFI 790GX (today) was ACC / SB750.
Even though I will use Bios for OC (mostly).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noki

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...d-920-review/7


This is what happens when you bench a phenom 2 against a core 2 quad with ddr2 ram

---

Did anyone else notice that the Bit Tech review never showed a 3 ghz PII @ 2Ghz HTT. :shrug: The 3Ghz PII is running 1.8Ghz HTT

Only the underclocked 2.6Ghz were at 2Ghz HTT. Did I misread this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nanohead

Did anyone else notice that the Bit Tech review never showed a 3 ghz PII @ 2Ghz HTT. :shrug: The 3Ghz PII is running 1.8Ghz HTT

Only the underclocked 2.6Ghz were at 2Ghz HTT. Did I misread this?

---

noticed they got 3 frames more on Q9650 with ddr3 then they did with ddr2

I thought ram didn't matter

looks like it dose, will probably be more on AMD side. after see the 14.5gbs bandwidth form I think it was hondaguy at 1100mhz ddr2.

The graphs look pretty but in the real world with your feet on the ground ....Cough.....cough...it's but a few second difference......that's it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMojoZ

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

---

Don't kid yourself every potential customer is on or should be on AMD's radar. If you remember when AMD was king,it was then that they made the biggest intrusion into Intel's market share. I just don't think Phenom 2 will make a big difference in Amd's bottom line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

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

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

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



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

---

You make some good points, the dollar is weak but to give an example of someone doing well, a few of my friends handle bankruptcies, there business is booming, another friend owns a auto repair shop he says his business is doing better then it has in 25 years.

As far as "a bunch of hardware that all runs about the same" this is xtreme systems and every little bit counts;)

Again just my opinon: Menace

the Intel guys are doing all they can to say that the P2 is a sorely inferior product and are doing their best to try and detour people from buying them. Competition is a great thing in the market and we need all we can get. I myself will get the 940 regardless of what Intel throws out.

Firing Squad has a GOOD review up for those that care about real world gaming numbers. PII is a nice competitor for Core I7 when gaming at REAL resolutions and high settings with AA/AF applied. Check out the stock clocked numbers of the PII 940/920 with DDRII 800. The Denebs should gain better performance with DDRII 1066 RAM.......Think of how well the AM3's will perform with DDR III support and higher clocked NB. I see why AMD is confident in the Denebs. With a little overclocking the Denebs can be a beast and put up a nice fight for Intel......at a cheaper cost too.:up:

NOTE: Keep in mind the numbers with the Core i7 utilize DDRIII 1333 RAM. I expect the PII's to perform atleast 5 percent better with DDR III RAM.

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_...ges/ep1920.gif

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_...ges/pf1600.gif

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_...es/fc21600.gif

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_.../dx9lp1920.gif

thats what i like to see. GOOOO AMD!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noki

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...d-920-review/7


This is what happens when you bench a phenom 2 against a core 2 quad with ddr2 ram

---

far cry 2 is a memory intensive program. i used to have 2gb of ram and would run maxed settings at 1680x1050 and the ram usage could run up to 90%+ usage. i think for that game changing the ram speed would make a huge difference but for others maybe not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TL1000S

1.Personal experience?
2.Or in general?

If 1 you fail at failing. :)
If 2 please elaborate (links).

The only reason I went for DFI 790GX (today) was ACC / SB750.
Even though I will use Bios for OC (mostly).

---

from the reviews i have seen and from SOF himself ACC hasn't done anything with phenom II. it may in the future with some updates but right now ACC doesn't affect phenom II.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...d-920-review/8 (sorry I'd posted twice the Farcy 2 Bench link, I anted to post this one, Half Life 2 Benchmark.)

Here also is ahead core 2quads ddr2....

I saw in the hwbox clock for clock comparison review that phenom II was about 9% slower than yorkfield...Now, amd says that am3 mobo + ddr3 ram will be a 5% performance increase.. so am3 denebs will be 4% slower than yorkfield...with some tweaking and new bios Amd will be just behind i7[/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noki

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...d-920-review/7

Here also is ahead core 2quads ddr2....

I saw in the hwbox clock for clock comparison review that phenom II was about 9% slower than yorkfield...Now, amd says that am3 mobo + ddr3 ram will be a 5% performance increase.. so am3 denebs will be 4% slower than yorkfield...with some tweaking and new bios Amd will be just behind i7

---

Good point Noki and for 275.00 you just can't beat Denebs. Power Efficient, inexpensive, very overclockable, cheaper mobo options, and excellent performance.........What more can you ask for? Can't wait until the price wars begin again. To be fair I can't take anything away from the Core i7, but the cost makes them so not worth it for the performance you get. AMD can now brush their shoulders off in the CPU section. I haven't been this stoked about AMD since the A64 single core days(Venice).:clap:

Can't wait until the PII 945's are released. Good things to come for all consumers.:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noki

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...d-920-review/7

Here also is ahead core 2quads ddr2....

I saw in the hwbox clock for clock comparison review that phenom II was about 9% slower than yorkfield...Now, amd says that am3 mobo + ddr3 ram will be a 5% performance increase.. so am3 denebs will be 4% slower than yorkfield...with some tweaking and new bios Amd will be just behind i7

---

where did you get the 9% value from? i believe the value was much lower. somewhere around 4 after you average every test they did. even the crappy ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TL1000S

1.Personal experience?
2.Or in general?

If 1 you fail at failing. :)
If 2 please elaborate (links).

The only reason I went for DFI 790GX (today) was ACC / SB750.
Even though I will use Bios for OC (mostly).

---

According to SoF in this thread.......http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=213690 (see posts 23 & 24), ACC doesn't do anything for Phen2. I read somewhere (another forum I think.....didn't b/m it) that Phen2 has ACC 'built in', whatever that means. Dunno, however SoF has been tweaking these things for several months so I'd tend to believe him when he states ACC doesn't matter. That being said, SB750 has other advantages over SB600 in SATA and USB performance. Enjoy your new DFI!:D

Found the link.it was right here...Doh!....http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...201154&page=38.....post #947.:D

The best part is yet to come: five AM3 models next month with lower price, new stepping, new motherboards, both AM2+ and AM3 models.
Intel will react and drop prices, and so will AMD. Good times no matter what brand you choose!

Yeah I actually assumed ACC would work later on, but still, GX is a guarantee for getting a newer mobo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

The graphs look pretty but in the real world with your feet on the ground ....Cough.....cough...it's but a few second difference......that's it!

---

You seem to have gotten yourself banned. :clap: Be sure to not :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: where you sleep for no reason! Reguardless of what XS decide to do with their site is up to them! Say what you must but they sure in hell don't advertise like other supposid "enthusiast" sites like futuremark and such. So eat a XS dik! Glad to see you go! Nice work mods!:clap:

Sorry roofsniper, you were right, the gap between Deneb and Yorkfield is 6%... taken from here :
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=213200&page=5

If it's true that ddr3 is going to give an extra 5% power...then deneb will be a great deal