AMD Phenom II AM3 review thread

Hi.

Thought it would be ok to open a topic on the new Phenom II AM3 CPU's since the NDA runs out right about now (feb. 9th).

I'm gonna be sneaky and put a link here to my own review of the X3 720. There's 130+ graphs showing everything:

• Stock speed vs. old Phenom and the X4 810
• Clock for clock testing featuring X4 810, E8400, X2 5000+, Core i7 920 and Phenom 9950 BE. All tests done @ 3.0 GHz
• AM2 vs. AM3 performance
• 1333 MHz DDR3 vs. 1600 MHz DDR3 @ AM3
• Overclocking

You can find the review here: http://hwt.dk/literaturedetails.aspx?TeaserID=9545

Quote:

---

"It is not hard to see that Core i7 is ahead in most of our tests, but it has not proven itself stronger in gaming, where Phenom II actually was ahead in most tests when it comes to minimum FPS; a point which is vital regarding experiencing lag in games. The theoretical performance of the Core i7 is higher, but the question is if you will ever be able to use this extra power as a private consumer. Of course there will always be applications which favour one over the other, and if someone uses an application which is strongly favoured by one of them, the choice has already been made on those grounds, and then the price is not as important. For others we have to assume that value for money plays a big part."

---

Please post all other Phenom II AM3 CPU reviews you can find in this thread...

www.firingsquad.com
www.guru3d.com
www.hexus.net
www.hothardware.com
www.tomshardware.com
www.cluboverclocker.com
www.pclab.pl (google translated)
www.lostcircuits.com
www.hardocp.com
www.neoseeker.com
www.pcper.com
www.extremetech.com
www.legitreviews.com
www.benchmarkreviews.com
www.insidehw.com
www.xbitlabs.com
www.pcgameshardware.com

Thanks for the review man,good job!

Link is down right now... will be back up in just a few moments - please be patient

So how does the X3 compare to the X4 940? Site's still down :(

sites back up thanks
edit: and back down again
edit2: and back up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

sites back up thanks
edit: and back down again
edit2: and back up

---

and back Fejl ...

The review is very good very detailed overall.. just waiting for it to come back up again!!

well it appears ddr3 does nothing at all so im not getting it until i have to. which will be most likely rd890 and sb800.

is there any reviews on Phenom II X4 945 or 925???

I would think not. At least not this time around. This is from the pressmaterial I got for the review:

http://hwt.dk/images/literature/9538...tioner_002.jpg

EDIT: site's working like a charm again. Have fun reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haylui

is there any reviews on Phenom II X4 945 or 925???

---

idk exactly when the 945 is coming out but the 925 will be coming out with these cpus. i think amd knows that the ddr3 ram adds nearly no advantage so they are choosing to highlight their other chips.

Great review, excellent job! :up:

Excellent review.

Thanks for the review
Was kinda hoping to see some DDR3 benches at speeds other than at 2.0GHz NB though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miwo

Thanks for the review
Was kinda hoping to see some DDR3 benches at speeds other than at 2.0GHz NB though...

---

you will see soon:D

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...2_performance/
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-ph...be-review-am3/
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=17113
http://hothardware.com/Articles/AMD-...M3-Processors/
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...enom,2148.html

Wow excellent review. I was really impressed with the graphs and selection of benchmarks. A liitle disappointment with DDR3 performance, but hopefully time will change that.

Also X3 was a pleasant surprise. :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by msimax

you will see soon:D

---

damn, skimming through all those reviews, not one had high NB results :o. Just change the multiplier to max, and that is pretty much every websites 'overclocking results' in a nutshell

Patiently waiting :)

http://cluboverclocker.com/reviews/c..._X4_810/p1.asp

Here is my review....and I did push HTT on the 810 :)

Nice reviews guys. The x3 chip is an amazing bargain.

The general prediction was that the X3 would be a good deal no matter what it was priced (since it was definitely below 190USD and there's the 8 series too)


But nobody knew it would be THAT cheap.

X3 710 for 125USD = Bargain of the year! (If you get a board that can scale NB multipliers)

the site design is really bad man, you gotta rework it, seriously :P
and it would have been better if we dont have to click on every result to see the actual numbers and performance :)

very nice review tho! :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miwo

Thanks for the review
Was kinda hoping to see some DDR3 benches at speeds other than at 2.0GHz NB though...

---

Lol, nenvermind. Guess I must be tired from benching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

the site design is really bad man, you gotta rework it, seriously :P
and it would have been better if we dont have to click on every result to see the actual numbers and performance :)

very nice review tho! :toast:

---

I'm sorry you feel that way - at least the results are there right? I have no influence on site design, I just write the reviews ;)


Oh and thanks for the love people - I'm feelin' you :)

While we're at shameless plugs:
http://pclab.pl/art35308.html

http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//i...id=54&Itemid=1
Interestingly enough it seems everybody used DDR2 boards

AMD should have just kept these on DDR2 and would have helped memory companies I'd imagine its cheaper to crank out a bunch of DDR2 1600 for AMDs high end, good reviews people. I have to say I'm impressed with winrar and i7 hyperthreading actually big time at work

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR

http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//i...id=54&Itemid=1
Interestingly enough it seems everybody used DDR2 boards

---

AM3 boards in general aren't ready yet. Give it a month, I know ClubOC will be looking at AM3/DDR3 performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

AMD should have just kept these on DDR2 and would have helped memory companies I'd imagine its cheaper to crank out a bunch of DDR2 1600 for AMDs high end, good reviews people. I have to say I'm impressed with winrar and i7 hyperthreading actually big time at work

---

You know all of these are compatible with AM2+/DDR2, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ether.real

You know all of these are compatible with AM2+/DDR2, right?

---

lol your right. Why is it the AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition Processor seems to be an OC champ? I guess in terms of thing why can it OC higher than a Quad? isn't it just a quad with a core disabled does it reduce that much stress?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

lol your right. Why is it the AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition Processor seems to be an OC champ? I guess in terms of thing why can it OC higher than a Quad? isn't it just a quad missing some cache and a core disabled?

---

It's missing one core(and its L2),the L3 cache is the same,6MB.
It's OC champ because it's an unlocked chip fully(all multies are unlocked-for NB,core clocks and Vcores) and has one core less to worry about.Power draw is less than with a QC,but perf. is also lower in multithreaded apps,so a valid trade off.

Looking at AM3/DDR3 X3/X4 gaming results ,it looks like these chips profit the most in games,while being slightly faster in other apps too.There is that issue of "poor" AM3/DDR3 performance we heard from various sites(due to not optimized BIOS at the moment).I'd give mobo makers one month to do the AM3/DDR3 BIOS job better and see what comes out of that.But even with these "unoptimized" BIOS versions,AM3/DDR3 is still faster across the baord than AM2+/DDR2,so well done :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

It's missing one core(and its L2),the L3 cache is the same,6MB.
It's OC champ because it's an unlocked chip fully(all multies are unlocked-for NB,core clocks and Vcores) and has one core less to worry about.Power draw is less than with a QC,but perf. is also lower in multithreaded apps,so a valid trade off.

---

I guess I'm still missing something, it's performance: value is awesome but AM3 Quad BE's are unlocked too. Seems like theres something missing? I dunno I guess I figured the Quad BE's would be going a lot higher than the value tri-cores

Anyone know when Nvidias MCP83 boards are coming out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

I guess I'm still missing something, it's performance: value is awesome but AM3 Quad BE's are unlocked too. Seems like theres something missing? I dunno I guess I figured the Quad BE's would be going a lot higher than the value tri-cores

Anyone know when Nvidias MCP83 boards are coming out?

---

There are no *multiple* quad core AM3 BE parts.There will be only one or two,the 945BE(3Ghz/2Ghz for core/NB) and 950.After some time AMD will introduce a new one in Q3(3.3Ghz) and probably a 3.5Ghz by the end of the year.

For the time being,the only BE parts will be the eol 940 AM2+ and 945/950BE that will come in the next two months(with the possibility that even 945 will be multi locked).
As for NV boards,should be March/April launch iirc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

I guess I'm still missing something, it's performance: value is awesome but AM3 Quad BE's are unlocked too. Seems like theres something missing? I dunno I guess I figured the Quad BE's would be going a lot higher than the value tri-cores

Anyone know when Nvidias MCP83 boards are coming out?

---

But what makes you think those tri-cores are value? Those tri-cores are basicly just quad cores with one core disabled, that's it. There are a lot of people would just dont feel like having a quad right now and save a bit of money by going with a tri-core.

Just like why people dont buy a HD4870X2 but a few HD4850's, they're not value buit simply offer less. Or why a lot of people got a Wolfdale instead of a Yorkfield, same thing;)

The only sad thing is that it misses 2MB of L3, because where Athlon X2 6500/7750 was doing nice is because it has more L3 cache available for the two cores than the quad cores had:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

The only sad thing is that it misses 2MB of L3, because where Athlon X2 6500/7750 was doing nice is because it has more L3 cache available for the two cores than the quad cores had:rolleyes:

---

Actually Ramm,the tri core 720BE has full 6MB of L3 ;).The X4 810 has 4MB L3,2MB less than 940/920 Denebs.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3512
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Ha...nom_ii_x4_810/
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=667
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2340569,00.asp
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/898/1/
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...=294&Itemid=63
http://www.insidehw.com/Reviews/CPU/...-vs.-DDR2.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Actually Ramm,the tri core 720BE has full 6MB of L3 ;).The X4 810 has 4MB L3,2MB less than 940/920 Denebs.

---

I = phail:cool:

Indeed, nvrmind my phailure. It does have 0.5MB less L2, but that makes sense.

So in otherwords, X3's is actually more awesome than X4 if you dont care a lot about multithreading/tasking:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

But what makes you think those tri-cores are value? Those tri-cores are basicly just quad cores with one core disabled, that's it. There are a lot of people would just dont feel like having a quad right now and save a bit of money by going with a tri-core.

---

Like I said value, a BE for $145ish vs. $200+ For quad. If people were thinking in terms of gee well I wont use all 4 cores for any other reason than they most likely wouldn't pick up a BE. This is a value performance chip for those who know what to do with a BE.
Most people who wouldn't take advantage of a dualcore let alone a quad would be fine with singlecores lets face it thats most people

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

Like I said value, a BE for $145ish vs. $200+ For quad. If people were thinking in terms of gee well I wont use all 4 cores for any other reason than they most likely wouldn't pick up a BE. This is a value performance chip for those who know what to do with a BE.
Most people who wouldn't take advantage of a dualcore let alone a quad would be fine with singlecores lets face it thats most people

---

You cant compare the 940BE with a 720BE. 920 is better comparable to 720BE because they run at the same clocks. It's only a 40 Euro difference between those two, seems all right for an extra core. I just dont get what you're going for, but value has a complete other meaning in my book, expecially since Mhz's/cache do add in any situation for average speed where's a 4th core might not.

I'd name the Deneb 8x0 series value over Heka 7x0 series. Serious value CPU's would be Propus, Rana and Regor, or to go short, upcoming Athlon X2/X3/X4 series.

720BE is some good bang/buck CPU, it certainly isnt a value chip though.

720 is brand-relative a good deal (vs E8400/7500).

Compared to the X4 810 and X3 710, it feels a bit awkward (as the 710 can go to 3.4-3.5+++ by HTT OC too).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

You cant compare the 940BE with a 720BE. 920 is better comparable to 720BE because they run at the same clocks. It's only a 40 Euro difference between those two, seems all right for an extra core. I just dont get what you're going for, but value has a complete other meaning in my book, expecially since Mhz's/cache do add in any situation for average speed where's a 4th core might not.

I'd name the Deneb 8x0 series value over Heka 7x0 series. Serious value CPU's would be Propus, Rana and Regor, or to go short, upcoming Athlon X2/X3/X4 series.

720BE is some good bang/buck CPU, it certainly isnt a value chip though.

---

I dont know if you've seen the conclusion I've made in my review, but I have made a chart where I have calculated the percentage of performance for each individual benchmark, figured out the average of that, and then compared it to the prices of the CPU's.

I ended up with X3 720 vs. i7 920 = 30% more performance to the Core i7

And for the Danish prices X3 720 vs. i7 920 = +142% higher price for the i7 920 (far more than double).

Now I'm just gonna fly:banana::banana::banana::banana: this last piece, but it has importance I think. This from the dictionary:

val⋅u⋅a⋅ble [val-yoo-uh-buhl, -yuh-buhl] Show IPA Pronunciation

1. having considerable monetary worth; costing or bringing a high price: a valuable painting; a valuable crop.
2. having qualities worthy of respect, admiration, or esteem: a valuable friend.
3. of considerable use, service, or importance: valuable information.

As I see it, Core i7 920 is only value in the 1st meaning of the word, whereas X3 720 fits with the description # 2 and 3

reviews are very positive at least the ones that i've read congrats amd seems to me like a nice job

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mads321

I dont know if you've seen the conclusion I've made in my review, but I have made a chart where I have calculated the percentage of performance for each individual benchmark, figured out the average of that, and then compared it to the prices of the CPU's.

I ended up with X3 720 vs. i7 920 = 30% more performance to the Core i7

And for the Danish prices X3 720 vs. i7 920 = +142% higher price for the i7 920 (far more than double).

Now I'm just gonna fly:banana::banana::banana::banana: this last piece, but it has importance I think. This from the dictionary:

val⋅u⋅a⋅ble [val-yoo-uh-buhl, -yuh-buhl] Show IPA Pronunciation

1. having considerable monetary worth; costing or bringing a high price: a valuable painting; a valuable crop.
2. having qualities worthy of respect, admiration, or esteem: a valuable friend.
3. of considerable use, service, or importance: valuable information.

As I see it, Core i7 920 is only value in the 1st meaning of the word, whereas X3 720 fits with the description # 2 and 3

---

i7 is 2045DKK. So the X3 720 is 845DKK? X4 920 is 1451DKK. 845DKK would be very cheap.

:rofl:

Nevermind, I just woke up when I saw Glow's post and somehow I read something else, like completely missing it was about performance/value instead of just value. Now things makes sense:p:

Forgive me now:D

Is it just me, or does AMD's chips seem to perform better at higher res/graphics? I'm not talking about bottleneck margins here but at least 5 - 6 FPS better than Intel counterparts. Can anyone explain why 'cause I always thought that lower res/graphics would show the maximum potential of CPUs the most as it eliminates graphics card bottlenecking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

i7 is 2045DKK. So the X3 720 is 845DKK? X4 920 is 1451DKK. 845DKK would be very cheap.

---

The OP already posted the prices in the summary of the review:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by http://hwt.dk

$145, or around DKK 856,- is the price of the Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition. The Core i7 might be better overall, but in the tests we have done, which should cover the vast majority of stress-tests for a CPU, we managed to make the graph above, which calculates the performance (red) versus the price(blue). The graph is made based on the clock-by-clock test, where all CPU's were running at 3 GHz. Furthermore it has to be noted, that the numbers for the Core i7 is taken from the triple channel 6 GB results. The performance difference between the X3 720 BE and the i7 920 is 30%, while the price is a staggering 142% higher on the Core i7. Almost 1½ times price increase! In other words there is not a shadow of a doubt, that you get most value for money when purchasing a Phenom II, and that is the reason for the top grade in this category.

---

must admit the HOCP review is much improved over the one they did on the 940

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

The OP already posted the prices in the summary of the review:

---

This is very faulty postulate. The following sentence will be also correctly:
The performance difference between the Pentium E5200 and the X3 720 BE is 30%, while the price is a staggering 142% higher on the X3 720 BE.
You can check it just here:
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3512
I think that something like Celeron E1200 is placed on the upper top of price/performance function extremum. :)
Besides, using "price/performance" term in this case is faulty by itself just because you pay for CPU only once but then use it during relative long time. (Try to calculate haw much time/energy/money in total you can save on movie transcoding by 30%-faster CPU during 2-year period :D)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

After some time AMD will introduce a new one in Q3(3.3Ghz) and probably a 3.5Ghz by the end of the year.

---

I wouldn't be so quick with that one. It was only ONE site that stated this and it was launched somewhat in december or november last year...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...ii-x4-810.html

you cant compare with E1200.
quote from xbit labs: The results of the new Celeron E1200 in games should be not very encouraging for the gaming fans. Its performance is truly below any acceptable level because of the small L2 cache. Even overclocking doesn’t help.

i dont find any of these websites usefull. luckaly a few give info on what timings they used and some didnt even bother to try with ddr3 memory.
and when they finaly showed some adequate data for comparison,they didnt do a clock for clock test.
i guess its up to xs amd users to find out what these puppy's realy can do on ddr3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frontl1ne

Is it just me, or does AMD's chips seem to perform better at higher res/graphics? I'm not talking about bottleneck margins here but at least 5 - 6 FPS better than Intel counterparts. Can anyone explain why 'cause I always thought that lower res/graphics would show the maximum potential of CPUs the most as it eliminates graphics card bottlenecking.

---

Ive been wondering the same.

Although it's fine if they review at 800x600, on the otherhand it starts to become like a 3DMark result. It doesnt tell us anything, no one plays at that resolution. That wouldnt be a problem if at higher resolutions the results would stay the same, but indeed PhII scales better on higher resolutions, making those low-res results instantly useless. They'd better review just for the normal used resolutions for 17, 19, 22, 24 screens.

Why PhII would scale better, Ive no clue. Some comparison done like a year ago between a Ph and a Yorkfield both at 3.4Ghz shown that the Yorkfield scored a higher CPU score but the PhII increased the GPU scores so much the end score was like the same:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

Ive been wondering the same.

Although it's fine if they review at 800x600, on the otherhand it starts to become like a 3DMark result. It doesnt tell us anything, no one plays at that resolution. That wouldnt be a problem if at higher resolutions the results would stay the same, but indeed PhII scales better on higher resolutions, making those low-res results instantly useless. They'd better review just for the normal used resolutions for 17, 19, 22, 24 screens.

Why PhII would scale better, Ive no clue. Some comparison done like a year ago between a Ph and a Yorkfield both at 3.4Ghz shown that the Yorkfield scored a higher CPU score but the PhII increased the GPU scores so much the end score was like the same:confused:

---

PhII performs better at high settings? How do you figure?

http://www.cluboverclocker.com/revie...40Black/p4.asp


Just like it should be, high settings = GPU bottleneck, silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

:rofl:

Nevermind, I just woke up when I saw Glow's post and somehow I read something else, like completely missing it was about performance/value instead of just value. Now things makes sense:p:

Forgive me now:D

---

:slapass:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...om,2148-4.html

Quote:

---

"Modding And Overclocking–Doable?
Our first thought after hearing that AMD wouldn't be launching a Phenom II X4 940/920 equivalent for the AM3 platform was, "what about all of the enthusiasts who've been eying those high-end models and still want to experiment with DDR3 memory?"


We knew we had a Phenom II X4 940 in the house that didn't scale very well and would likely be replaced soon by another chip that would ideally have more headroom built into it, so we decided to try "creating" a 938-pin AM3 chip out of our 940-pin AM2+ sample. After all, the silicon under its proverbial hood was the same–the only difference was its interface.


Zoom

So, using a mechanical pencil, we bent the two offending pins back and forth until they snapped off. The chip now fit into our AM3 test platform, albeit not flush due to the metal nubs where each pin broke. Unfortunately, the modded processor would not POST at all, forcing us to conclude that the task wouldn't be as easy as popping off pins. It's truly a shame that enthusiasts can't get access to AMD's AM2 pinout, which would describe the exact role of each pin rather than force us to guess. The most recent tech doc publicly-available relates to the old-school Socket 940 interface.


Wondering if we'd just nuked a perfectly good CPU, we moved the Phenom II X4 940 back to its AM2+ board. Lo and behold, it still ran fine, without any immediately apparent issues.
"

---

How in the :banana::banana::banana::banana: does anyone take these guys seriously? What's next? Trying to cram DDR3 modules in DDR2 sockets?

call me crazy but i was wondering the same thing but he saved me the task:rofl:

what AMD missed was to send the reviewers a PII 910 or PII 925...I really wanted to see how the L3 6mb quads scale with DDR3...

Did anyone else notice that not many sites really tried pushing the X4 810 much? I got 3.51GHz, I think two sites pushed harder than that, and everyone else crapped out at 3GHz-3.2GHz....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ether.real

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...om,2148-4.html






How in the :banana::banana::banana::banana: does anyone take these guys seriously? What's next? Trying to cram DDR3 modules in DDR2 sockets?

---

Good to know. I had wondered the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ether.real

Did anyone else notice that not many sites really tried pushing the X4 810 much? I got 3.51GHz, I think two sites pushed harder than that, and everyone else crapped out at 3GHz-3.2GHz....

---

I've got 37xx MHz out of the sample I've got here now - still working on the OC section of that review, which I suspect will get public sometime soon ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mads321

I've got 37xx MHz out of the sample I've got here now - still working on the OC section of that review, which I suspect will get public sometime soon ;)

---

I suspect that the gimped cache is probably reducing people's interest in it. The 720, OTOH, has more cache but 1 less core + unlocked multi. I dunno, *shrug*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoc

what AMD missed was to send the reviewers a PII 910 or PII 925...I really wanted to see how the L3 6mb quads scale with DDR3...

---

No kidding why would you want a Quad with 4mb of cache I thought AMD would be done shorting us on the cache. I'm real curious about their highend but leary about the cost cause the mass amount of crap they are puttin in midrange will prolly push the cost of the highend up. Really hope its not much more than what 940 since thats their current highend price

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ether.real

PhII performs better at high settings? How do you figure?

http://www.cluboverclocker.com/revie...40Black/p4.asp


Just like it should be, high settings = GPU bottleneck, silly.

---

There's this weird difference between resolutions and actual settings:rolleyes: No way any decent GPU, which you should use anyway to make the possible bottlenecks as less as possible, would become a bottleneck at the before mentioned resolutions:rolleyes:

Also, what a :banana::banana::banana::banana: review that is, only four games where two of them are already known to be highly GPU bound!? What's wrong with UT3 etc:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

:slapass:

---

:(

you're talking to the author Ramm ;) what's the point if a CPU can run UT3 at 250fps or 270fps anyways? give me meaningful numbers over those anyday of the week

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/786...6723137ac7.jpg

very nice test, thanks! SupCom is known for being multithreaded but here an Intel dual core is more powerful ; at what setting did you bench this? Did you use the included -perf map test etherreal?

Thats all Nice~~ but I want 945 and I want it now :soap: :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ether.real

Did anyone else notice that not many sites really tried pushing the X4 810 much? I got 3.51GHz, I think two sites pushed harder than that, and everyone else crapped out at 3GHz-3.2GHz....

---

We did push, got 3770 MHz fully stable on crappy cooler :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ether.real

PhII performs better at high settings? How do you figure?

http://www.cluboverclocker.com/revie...40Black/p4.asp


Just like it should be, high settings = GPU bottleneck, silly.

---

Look at this score: http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-ph...-review-am3/23

If you follow the margin between the E8400 and the X4 810, you'll notice it's a 1 frame difference at 1024 res, 1 frame difference at 1280 res and then a 6 frame difference at 1600 res. Also, the i7 drops below the PII's at 1600 res, the X4 920 gains 2 FPS moving to 1600 res, and the X3 720 stays the same moving from 1280 to 1600 res. :shrug:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-ph...-review-am3/25

The X4 810 has a 3 FPS lead to the i7 in 1600 after trailing in the 2 lower resolutions.

This is where it starts looking suss: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ance/page7.asp

X3 720 trails the Q6600 by about 6 FPS in 800 res. At 1600 res with same settings, the margin is only 3 FPS. Turn on AA and all graphics to high, the X3 720 leads the Q6600 by 5 FPS. Even the X4 810, which was trailing the Q6600 by 10 frames in 800 res, leads it at 1600 res by 2 frames. Also, in that Far Cry 2 test, top four in 800 res is Intel > Intel > AMD > Intel. Top four in 1600 res is Intel > Intel > AMD > Intel. Top four in 1600 res with eye candy is Intel > AMD > AMD > AMD. :shrug:

This is interesting, particularly the Q6600 and the two Phenoms: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ance/page9.asp

Well, that's all I've got. And it's interesting because through forums and people I know, I've been hearing bits and pieces of the same thing, that Phenoms perform better at higher resolutions. Why does the Phenoms score higher than Intel chips in higher resolutions? :shrug: It's more than just bottlenecks. Not saying it happens in all games though or that the lead is massive in high resolution. But the lead is there :shrug:

Sorry about the lack of data, not many people seem to test at both low and high resolutions and others don't test gaming performance at all :(

Edit: Just checked out some 920/940 reviews and found some interesting stuff:

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/860/11/ <- Fallout 3 results
http://www.trustedreviews.com/cpu-me...m-II-X4-940/p3 <- Quake Wars, PII 940 loses 2 FPS shifting to 1920 res whereas Intel loses 8 - 20 FPS.

I've also noticed after looking through a couple of game tests that the i7 seems to take a bit of a performance hit at high resolution gaming. It crops up quite often:

http://www.hwbox.gr/showthread.php?t=3189&garpg=23
http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...omii940/14.htm

Maybe that's why people feel Phenoms offer a smoother gameplay experience. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frontl1ne

Look at this score: http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-ph...-review-am3/23

If you follow the margin between the E8400 and the X4 810, you'll notice it's a 1 frame difference at 1024 res, 1 frame difference at 1280 res and then a 6 frame difference at 1600 res. Also, the i7 drops below the PII's at 1600 res, the X4 920 gains 2 FPS moving to 1600 res, and the X3 720 stays the same moving from 1280 to 1600 res. :shrug:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-ph...-review-am3/25

The X4 810 has a 3 FPS lead to the i7 in 1600 after trailing in the 2 lower resolutions.

This is where it starts looking suss: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ance/page7.asp

X3 720 trails the Q6600 by about 6 FPS in 800 res. At 1600 res with same settings, the margin is only 3 FPS. Turn on AA and all graphics to high, the X3 720 leads the Q6600 by 5 FPS. Even the X4 810, which was trailing the Q6600 by 10 frames in 800 res, leads it at 1600 res by 2 frames. Also, in that Far Cry 2 test, top four in 800 res is Intel > Intel > AMD > Intel. Top four in 1600 res is Intel > Intel > AMD > Intel. Top four in 1600 res with eye candy is Intel > AMD > AMD > AMD. :shrug:

This is interesting, particularly the Q6600 and the two Phenoms: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ance/page9.asp

Well, that's all I've got. And it's interesting because through forums and people I know, I've been hearing bits and pieces of the same thing, that Phenoms perform better at higher resolutions. Why does the Phenoms score higher than Intel chips in higher resolutions? :shrug: It's more than just bottlenecks. Not saying it happens in all games though or that the lead is massive in high resolution. But the lead is there :shrug:

Sorry about the lack of data, not many people seem to test at both low and high resolutions and others don't test gaming performance at all :(

Edit: Just checked out some 920/940 reviews and found some interesting stuff:

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/860/11/ <- Fallout 3 results
http://www.trustedreviews.com/cpu-me...m-II-X4-940/p3 <- Quake Wars, PII 940 loses 2 FPS shifting to 1920 res whereas Intel loses 8 - 20 FPS.

I've also noticed after looking through a couple of game tests that the i7 seems to take a bit of a performance hit at high resolution gaming. It crops up quite often:

http://www.hwbox.gr/showthread.php?t=3189&garpg=23
http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...omii940/14.htm

Maybe that's why people feel Phenoms offer a smoother gameplay experience. :cool:

---

You basicly point out GPU limitations. It doesnt matter if you put a 500Ghz i7, Core 2 or Ph2 infront of an "old" game. It will still perform around roughly to the lowest max CPU. So its natural that the faster CPU will lose more "FPS" when resolution goes up. Hence why slower CPUs tend to shine the slower the graphic card(s) is. Overclockers.com uses a single 4850 as an example. Firingsquad uses a 295GTX. However no Q9550 or i7. Legit used a 260GTX and so on.

Phenoms smoother? No...more stable perhaps since the variation is lower. But ranging in say 10-50FPS aint better than 10-200FPS.

Also most of not all reviews use fraps. Fraps is however far from the optimal way of measuring. So you could easily have a 5% or more in differation. Plus you have the standard test variations.

As many tests shows the exact opposite of yours. Its just that you handpicked those you wanted to see and base your conclusion on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rammsteiner

There's this weird difference between resolutions and actual settings:rolleyes: No way any decent GPU, which you should use anyway to make the possible bottlenecks as less as possible, would become a bottleneck at the before mentioned resolutions:rolleyes:

---

This makes absolutely no sense. Care to elaborate?

Quote:

---

Also, what a :banana::banana::banana::banana: review that is, only four games where two of them are already known to be highly GPU bound!? What's wrong with UT3 etc:shrug:


:(

---

Why would I bench a game that no current hardware has issues running? Benching UT3 is pointless. The last time I benched UT3, the highest settings/res ran at over 120FPS. Its a waste of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmke

you're talking to the author Ramm ;) what's the point if a CPU can run UT3 at 250fps or 270fps anyways? give me meaningful numbers over those anyday of the week

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/786...6723137ac7.jpg

very nice test, thanks! SupCom is known for being multithreaded but here an Intel dual core is more powerful ; at what setting did you bench this? Did you use the included -perf map test etherreal?

---

Yes, I used the -perf option, maxed out, 1920x1200.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

You basicly point out GPU limitations. It doesnt matter if you put a 500Ghz i7, Core 2 or Ph2 infront of an "old" game. It will still perform around roughly to the lowest max CPU. So its natural that the faster CPU will lose more "FPS" when resolution goes up. Hence why slower CPUs tend to shine the slower the graphic card(s) is. Overclockers.com uses a single 4850 as an example. Firingsquad uses a 295GTX. However no Q9550 or i7. Legit used a 260GTX and so on.

Phenoms smoother? No...more stable perhaps since the variation is lower. But ranging in say 10-50FPS aint better than 10-200FPS.

Also most of not all reviews use fraps. Fraps is however far from the optimal way of measuring. So you could easily have a 5% or more in differation. Plus you have the standard test variations.
As many tests shows the exact opposite of yours. Its just that you handpicked those you wanted to see and base your conclusion on.

---

Sounds like margin of error to me. Most of the testing shows 2-5FPS difference, which is hardly substantial. If this rumor persists, I guess the NBOC crew is going to have to mythbust this.

About performing on higher resolutions.
The workload for the CPU in games is not constant, everybody knows this because there is min, max values.
If you are walking on a road in the game and there isn't much action, then the CPU doesn't need to calculate that much for the picture and there is probably less calculation done for physics, AI etc.
This situation favors intel and all the tricks that it has for speedups. Memory is probably less fragmented and threads doesn't need to synchronize that often.
When there is a fight or something else that need much more calculations done for the picture workload changes. It is probably more synchronizations done if the game uses threads, more memory is used and it is more fragmented.
On low resolutions the GPU doesn't limit performance and the calculation might look like this (VERY SIMPLIFIED).
Most of the time spent in games isn't spent in heavy action situations, if 95% is spent on the road and 5% is spent in action situations.
Low resolution (gpu doesn't limit the fps):
Walking on a road 200 FPS for i7 and 35 FPS in a fight.
200 * 0,95 + 35 * 0,05 = 191,75

Phenom may get 130 FPS and 60 FPS when there is a fight.
130 * 0,95 + 60 * 0,05 = 126,5

High resolution (gpu can only draw 60 frames per second):
i7: 60 * 0,95 + 35 * 0,05 = 58,75
Phenom: 60 * 0,95 + 60 * 0,05 = 60

These numbers are just to show the outcome when the GPU starts to limit cpu.

The L3 cache on phenom is 48-way set associative, i7 has 16-way set associative L3 cache. Phenom has 64 KB L1 cache for data and code, i7 has 32 KB cache for data and code, L2 cache is 512 for phenom and 256 for i7.
I think that phenom handle complex situations better, it is built based on decreasing bottlenecks. Core 2 and i7 may have a different focus, they may have the focus on maximize performance and when it works it works good, when it doesn't work the slowdown is larger compared to phenom.

EDIT: There is some who thinks this is a chipset problem, but if it was the chipset then Phenom would always be better on high resolutions when the gpu limits the cpu. Maybe the difference sometimes is so small that is hard to spot but it would be there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

About performing on higher resolutions.
The workload for the CPU in games is not constant, everybody knows this because there is min, max values.
If you are walking on a road in the game and there isn't much action, then the CPU doesn't need to calculate that much for the picture and there is probably less calculation done for physics, AI etc.
This situation favors intel and all the tricks that it has for speedups. Memory is probably less fragmented and threads doesn't need to synchronize that often.
When there is a fight or something else that need much more calculations done for the picture workload changes. It is probably more synchronizations done if the game uses threads, more memory is used and it is more fragmented.
On low resolutions the GPU doesn't limit performance and the calculation might look like this (VERY SIMPLIFIED).
Most of the time spent in games isn't spent in heavy action situations, if 95% is spent on the road and 5% is spent in action situations.
Low resolution (gpu doesn't limit the fps):
Walking on a road 200 FPS for i7 and 35 FPS in a fight.
200 * 0,95 + 35 * 0,05 = 191,75

Phenom may get 130 FPS and 60 FPS when there is a fight.
130 * 0,95 + 60 * 0,05 = 126,5

High resolution (gpu can only draw 60 frames per second):
i7: 60 * 0,95 + 35 * 0,05 = 58,75
Phenom: 60 * 0,95 + 60 * 0,05 = 60

These numbers are just to show the outcome when the GPU starts to limit cpu.

The L3 cache on phenom is 48-way set associative, i7 has 16-way set associative L3 cache. Phenom has 64 KB L1 cache for data and code, i7 has 32 KB cache for data and code, L2 cache is 512 for phenom and 256 for i7.
I think that phenom handle complex situations better, it is built based on decreasing bottlenecks. Core 2 and i7 may have a different focus, they may have the focus on maximize performance and when it works it works good, when it doesn't work the slowdown is larger compared to phenom.

EDIT: There is some who thinks this is a chipset problem, but if it was the chipset then Phenom would always be better on high resolutions when the gpu limits the cpu. Maybe the difference sometimes is so small that is hard to spot but it would be there.

---

Gosh it's simple; a gpu must work in tandem with a cpu to render images on your screen; the stronger of two cpus in this instance is the one that processes information and spits it back fastest to the gpu. This assumes that the gpu is processing a very light load; meaning the cpu has to work more to keep up. As soon as you shift the load to the gpu, then the weaknesses of the weakest cpu becomes diminished because the gpu is not as demanding anymore since it is dealing with a heavy load itself. This is what happens when most people run high res on mid-range gpus; it allows weaker cpus to appear shine because they operate at lower cycles (load). If you're attributing these anomalies to the architecture of the PHII, then how come the PHII still loses in many other games (both low res and high res)? Even a dualcore becomes a contender in high res situations as the link above shows.

Anyway, I went to trouble of playing Grid (my favorite) at a low res of 640x480 to show you a visual image of the loads on cpu, and gpu cores.

Edit: Q9650 @ 4.3Ghz 9x478.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Gosh it's simple; a gpu must work in tandem with a cpu to render images on your screen; the stronger of two cpus in this instance is the one that processes information and spits it back fastest to the gpu. This assumes that the gpu is processing a very light load; meaning the cpu has to work more to keep up.

---

If you mean that the gpu lets the processor "spin" faster thats correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

As soon as you shift the load to the gpu, then the weaknesses of the weakest cpu becomes diminished because the gpu is not as demanding anymore since it is dealing with a heavy load itself.

---

But if the load for one frame is on the gpu and then there is something that happens and the CPU need to fetch memory, the load is for the CPU rendering that frame. A larger cache miss could mean that that speed for that frame depends on the cpu, next frame and data is in the cache and speed is decided by the GPU. It can shift a lot.
This is also one situation that is hard to spot on graphs that times frames because the gpu runs asynchronously to the cpu. It is always at least one frame behind. Sometimes almost two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

If you're attributing these anomalies to the architecture of the PHII, then how come the PHII still loses in many other games (both low res and high res)? Even a dualcore becomes a contender in high res situations as the link above shows.

---

It depends on how the code is done, if the code doesn't hit bottlenecks it will scale well on intel. I think you will see much more of this phenomena when games start to use DX11, that phenom runs better on high resolutions compared to intel for processors today.
EDIT: i7 may like DX11 games too

Gosh's theory sounds quite plausible. What ever the cause, phenom 2 is a pretty amazing little cpu. The platform cost makes it even more enticing.

Soo, where's the beef? I mean bandwidth.
Looks like DDR3-1600 yields only around 15% more b/w for AM3 CPUs compared to DDR2-1066 on AM2+.

:rolleyes:

It's still early mate, boards and biosses need to mature... but it's the same for S775 : a high well tweaked DDR2 platform can keep up with DDR3 1600 C9 most of the time... it's just in some apps that the extra power of DDR3 is nice... once you surpass 1600mhz with tight latencies it looks better...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by largon

Soo, where's the beef? I mean bandwidth.
Looks like DDR3-1600 yields only around 15% more b/w for AM3 CPUs compared to DDR2-1066 on AM2+.

:rolleyes:

---

NB/L3 limited perhaps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by largon

Soo, where's the beef? I mean bandwidth.
Looks like DDR3-1600 yields only around 15% more b/w for AM3 CPUs compared to DDR2-1066 on AM2+.

:rolleyes:

---

AMD told a couple of review sites that AM3/DDR3 combo is mostly BIOS limited at the moment.That's why we see only a couple of boards on the market atm. But even with the not so "optimized" BIOS,the AM3/DDR3 combo is outperforming the 1066DDR2/AM2+ by 2-4% on average(depending on the review and app used).
It's reasonable to give a month to board makers to make adjustments to firmwares for their boards,just in time for 945/950 launch.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...with_DDR3-RAM/

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...710-am3-cpus/1

Finally
http://techreport.com/articles.x/16382
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/am...10-920-p1.html

Very very nice :)

AMD would be in severe trouble if Phenom II werent a success.

We now have good options, OC'able cheap, tri-cores...quads...

Go competition !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onethreehill

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpu...710-am3-cpus/1

---

I know they are trying to show stock settings i guess for the review.. but in their conclusion...they say the ddr3 mem controller isn't good enough..yet they have it clocked at 1.8ghz... I think the margin would be a bit more noticeable if they had pushed it to 2.6 ghz.