MMM
Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 480

Thread: AMD Phenom II 920 & 940 Full Review

  1. #226
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lubbock, Texas
    Posts
    2,133
    Quote Originally Posted by gallag View Post
    lol, I think I will be keeping my two year old q6600 @450x8 3.6ghz since it will likely be faster or as fast as any deneb untill I can get i7-i5.

    Can I ask why you are going to spend the money to change platform for no improvement?
    i really don't know where people are coming from with this whole q6600 > phenom II thing. theres nothing that proves that.
    Quote Originally Posted by N19h7m4r3 View Post
    I don't care what people are posting. I want official reviews from respectable sources

    Either way I'm getting a 940 BE
    i find it funny that one review comes out and suddenly everyone believes this is phenom IIs fate. we have seen many good things already so i think people need to wait awhile before making conclusions. and to everyone who is bashing phenom II and says it failed. have you ever made a post in the amd forum ever before? it just seems the ones that say it sucks seem to be very uniformed but it won't even matter because whenever phenom II is released everyone will see how it performs. we need more reviews and it needs to actually be released. many people here have had luck with the 9850 and 9950 and the phenom II is way better than both of those so we will have to see how it turns out. as i recall there were many saying that i7 was a fail right before it came out. even intel fanboys. and for reasons like having i7 not being able to use ram with voltage over the cpu voltage. look how that turned out. it doesn't matter at all. just wait until it is actually out before making a conclusion because as the past has shown its not always true.

  2. #227
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Haslett, MI
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by roofsniper View Post
    i really don't know where people are coming from with this whole q6600 > phenom II thing. theres nothing that proves that.


    i find it funny that one review comes out and suddenly everyone believes this is phenom IIs fate. we have seen many good things already so i think people need to wait awhile before making conclusions. and to everyone who is bashing phenom II and says it failed. have you ever made a post in the amd forum ever before? it just seems the ones that say it sucks seem to be very uniformed but it won't even matter because whenever phenom II is released everyone will see how it performs. we need more reviews and it needs to actually be released. many people here have had luck with the 9850 and 9950 and the phenom II is way better than both of those so we will have to see how it turns out. as i recall there were many saying that i7 was a fail right before it came out. even intel fanboys. and for reasons like having i7 not being able to use ram with voltage over the cpu voltage. look how that turned out. it doesn't matter at all. just wait until it is actually out before making a conclusion because as the past has shown its not always true.
    You have said it 10 times already; why, is it because your daddy works for AMD? I want to see you be so vigilant in all those threads in the AMD section where you and others have argued Deneb is better than Ci7 based on nothing but previews. Here is a real review (call it what you want) that shows a 600mhz disadvantaged kentsfield beating a Deneb in some apps. It stands to reason to thing that a 20% overclock to 3Ghz, would see the kentsfield beating Deneb in more apps. That's the reasoning, especially since you're all about overclocks. Out.

  3. #228
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    cleveland ohio
    Posts
    2,813
    Quote Originally Posted by justapost View Post
    Thanks Zucker2k, but what does the power meter say? Is your system running on air or water cooling?
    I'll post my results as soon as I get an PII.

    EDIT: I see Amps and Watta ge in Everest but it seems everest uses the VID (1.25V) here to calculate the wattage and not the 1.38V really used atm. Beside that 16A look good for the cores but it's quite useless to compare cpu's consumption allone with all the different power sources used nowadays.
    HE GETS THE SAME TEMPS AS MY 9850 BE AT 1.4650 VOLTS!!!

    even idle is is the same temps

    should you not be 1.368 x 16 x 4 =87(+/_10%) watts I mean it dose have 4 cores right and they all should have the same volts applied ?

    cooler on mine is a sunbeam CCF

    I don't have everest full version. I'm cheap skate......lol
    HAVE NO FEAR!
    "AMD fallen angel"
    "Behold the gaseous stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
    Quote Originally Posted by Gamekiller View Post
    You didn't get the memo? 1 hour 'Fugger time' is equal to 12 hours of regular time.

  4. #229
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Glow9 View Post
    Most of the tests we saw the the q9450 and q9550 get beat or were close and a few months ago people didnt even know if it would be even beat a Q9450 in anything. Like I said before if it beats a Q9450 I'd pick on up seens like a lot of you ae bashing on results when it exceeded most peoples lower expectations, Too bad this review didnt have OC benchmarks to compare.
    Clock for clock Yorkfield is still on top in just about anything.Kentsfield performs excellently considering its 400/600MHz disadvantage.At the same clockspeed I'd say Kentsfield is going to win more benchmarks than it loses.This is normal , btw , a Phenom with a larger cache isn't going to walk over Core , much to the surprise of others.

    As for Nehalem , once graphic drivers optimized for it appear on the market , it will enjoy a healthy boost , eliminating strange corner cases where it falls behind at larger resolutions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinz Guderian View Post
    There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people.

  5. #230
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Munich, DE
    Posts
    1,401
    Quote Originally Posted by demonkevy666 View Post
    HE GETS THE SAME TEMPS AS MY 9850 BE AT 1.4650 VOLTS!!!

    even idle is is the same temps

    should you not be 1.368 x 16 x 4 =87(+/_10%) watts I mean it dose have 4 cores right and they all should have the same volts applied ?

    cooler on mine is a sunbeam CCF

    I don't have everest full version. I'm cheap skate......lol
    He He yeah, looks like single core ampere requirements in everest. If 20W really generate an 15°C temperature difference something must be wrong with the cooling setup otherwise.
    Add ~85% vrm efficiency and ~80% psu efficiency and it will be around 102W DC / 128W AC.

  6. #231
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    cleveland ohio
    Posts
    2,813
    so first you all about phenom can't overclock but was 7% slower at max, synthetic benches show 15% max, when overclocked but many AMD users on water gotten pretty darn high 3.6ghz and they've shown NB speed can affect performance and FPS in games. Now your all complain about a totally different aspect of the CHIP, being STOCK....>_>...
    HAVE NO FEAR!
    "AMD fallen angel"
    "Behold the gaseous stench of Skeletor's breakfast burrito!"
    Quote Originally Posted by Gamekiller View Post
    You didn't get the memo? 1 hour 'Fugger time' is equal to 12 hours of regular time.

  7. #232
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    51
    We didn't have a 9950BE

    how mch is 9950be? someone should lend him, should be interesting to see how much agena performance change since first released.
    anyway great rffort on review, hope to see system power consumption on next.

  8. #233
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    France
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by Zucker2k View Post
    Here is a real review (call it what you want) that shows a 600mhz disadvantaged kentsfield beating a Deneb in some apps. It stands to reason to thing that a 20% overclock to 3Ghz, would see the kentsfield beating Deneb in more apps. That's the reasoning, especially since you're all about overclocks. Out.
    Some apps? Q6600 beats PII 920 in exactly ONE APP (Far Cry 2)! Yes just one
    You overclock Q6600 20%. Just overclock PII 920 20%! We have strong guessing it can do 3.6GHz stock volt.

    My calculations based on benchs (without sandra and everest) ( give me PII 920 11.7% faster than Q6600 for 16.7% faster clock and 3.3% slower than Q9450 for 4.9% faster clock.
    I wait impatiently reviex with more real world benchs.
    AMD Phenom II X2 550@Phenom II X4 B50
    MSI 890GXM-G65
    Corsair CMX4GX3M2A1600C9 2x2GB
    Sapphire HD 6950 2GB

  9. #234
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lubbock, Texas
    Posts
    2,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Zucker2k View Post
    You have said it 10 times already; why, is it because your daddy works for AMD? I want to see you be so vigilant in all those threads in the AMD section where you and others have argued Deneb is better than Ci7 based on nothing but previews. Here is a real review (call it what you want) that shows a 600mhz disadvantaged kentsfield beating a Deneb in some apps. It stands to reason to thing that a 20% overclock to 3Ghz, would see the kentsfield beating Deneb in more apps. That's the reasoning, especially since you're all about overclocks. Out.
    so what does my dad have to do with anything? and show me where i said deneb is better than i7. i haven't bashed i7 for anything im just saying that phenom II has its own spot and it doesn't suck. its like the 4850 of video cards. its not the best but it fits in for what some want. if you want absolute performance then sure get the i7 but if you want a cheaper platform that overclocks well, that actually performs at things that matter like games for example not that stupid super pi stuff. and gets lower temps, then get deneb. they are two different leagues and just because it isn't the performance leader doesn't mean that it is bad. the i7 920 can't keep up with the i7 965 does that mean that it is bad and should of never been released? it just seems that many people are losing their common sense and ability to think just because they want to feel that they were right in purchasing their brand over another brand and refuse to believe that the other brand can release anything good.

  10. #235
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,477
    Quote Originally Posted by savantu View Post
    Clock for clock Yorkfield is still on top in just about anything.Kentsfield performs excellently considering its 400/600MHz disadvantage.At the same clockspeed I'd say Kentsfield is going to win more benchmarks than it loses.This is normal , btw , a Phenom with a larger cache isn't going to walk over Core , much to the surprise of others.
    Quote Originally Posted by AbelJemka View Post
    Some apps? Q6600 beats PII 920 in exactly ONE APP (Far Cry 2)! Yes just one
    You overclock Q6600 20%. Just overclock PII 920 20%! We have strong guessing it can do 3.6GHz stock volt.
    I'm curious about who can OC higher and who uses less power. But I'd easily pick a Phenom II over a Q6600 based on these results.
    i3 2100, MSI H61M-E33. 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws.
    MSI GTX 460 Twin Frozr II. 1TB Caviar Blue.
    Corsair HX 620, CM 690, Win 7 Ultimate 64bit.

  11. #236
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    70
    We need some comprehensive reviews soon or else we will start hearing rumors from fans that Phenom II can overclock stably to 5ghz on air with moderate volts.

  12. #237
    So a site that nobody knows, an not even a "let's wait for credible sources", from the usual suspects?? lol x10, even more when there are already conclusions and numbers, about deneb on this forum, made by respectable members, that are a "little" different from the results on this review


    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._12.html#sect0

    i7 920 with GTX216 1280*1024 = 275

    i7 965 with medium quality with HD4870 at only 1024*768 = 108


    http://www.techspot.com/review/124-i...65/page12.html

    i7 920 with low quality, GTX216 1280*1024 = 177

    i7 965 with low quality, with GTX 280 at only 800*600 = 110

    So guess what, either the GTX216 is ubber better then the HD4870 & GTX280, and we all know the answer, or Intel should hire the guys that made the review for the R&B department, cause they can really improve a cpu.


    And Zucker2k, nice late try, but you're to late for the troll of the year award.

  13. #238
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Tre, Suomi Finland
    Posts
    3,867

    You can't be serious.
    You simply cannot possibly believe a 4GHz Yorkfield quadcore consumes nineteen and a half watts under load?
    Cause that would be...
    You were not supposed to see this.

  14. #239
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleZero View Post
    So a site that nobody knows, an not even a "let's wait for credible sources", from the usual suspects?? lol x10, even more when there are already conclusions and numbers, about deneb on this forum, made by respectable members, that are a "little" different from the results on this review


    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._12.html#sect0

    i7 920 with GTX216 1280*1024 = 275

    i7 965 with medium quality with HD4870 at only 1024*768 = 108


    http://www.techspot.com/review/124-i...65/page12.html

    i7 920 with low quality, GTX216 1280*1024 = 177

    i7 965 with low quality, with GTX 280 at only 800*600 = 110

    So guess what, either the GTX216 is ubber better then the HD4870 & GTX280, and we all know the answer, or Intel should hire the guys that made the review for the R&B department, cause they can really improve a cpu.


    And Zucker2k, nice late try, but you're to late for the troll of the year award.
    +1 , Need more reviews from Well known credible websites , before deciding on anything.
    AMD Phenom II X550BE @ X4 3.8Ghz | Asus Crosshair V Formula | Gskill F3-16000CL9-8GBRM | 2 X Saphire 4850 in Crossfire | Asus Xonar D2x | Corsair HX750 | Silverstone Raven rv-01

  15. #240
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cairo
    Posts
    2,382
    Quote Originally Posted by largon View Post

    You can't be serious.
    You simply cannot possibly believe a 4GHz Yorkfield quadcore consumes nineteen and a half watts under load?
    Cause that would be...


    Why not , it is only 40W lower that the E8400 in my sig using the same tools

    Quote Originally Posted by Blaber View Post
    +1 , Need more reviews from Well known credible websites , before deciding on anything.
    Look at the first post in the thread

    We made
    I think the OP is credible enough here or both you and DoubleZero don't know anything about XS
    Last edited by kemo; 12-26-2008 at 09:46 AM.
    Intel Core I7 920 @ 3.8GHZ 1.28V (Core Contact Freezer)
    Asus X58 P6T
    6GB OCZ Gold DDR3-1600MHZ 8-8-8-24
    XFX HD5870
    WD 1TB Black HD
    Corsair 850TX
    Cooler Master HAF 922

  16. #241
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lubbock, Texas
    Posts
    2,133
    its not just about being credible. its about having more reviews than just one. hat if he got a bad chip? what if someone found out something he didn't know? what if there is a review that actually overclocks the chip, looks at power consumption, and takes price/performance into account. im not saying its a bad review or anything just we need to have more no matter how credible the source is and theres more information we need to know. how the chip performs at stock is not a buying point for me.

  17. #242
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    France
    Posts
    741
    For me it's just a preview.
    -No power consumption.
    -No temps.
    -No enough real world apps.
    -No Phenom I

    les than 2 weeks and it will ok.
    AMD Phenom II X2 550@Phenom II X4 B50
    MSI 890GXM-G65
    Corsair CMX4GX3M2A1600C9 2x2GB
    Sapphire HD 6950 2GB

  18. #243
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Tre, Suomi Finland
    Posts
    3,867
    I too would've liked a comparison to Agena and power consumption figures.
    You were not supposed to see this.

  19. #244
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Cairo
    Posts
    2,382
    Quote Originally Posted by roofsniper View Post
    its not just about being credible. its about having more reviews than just one. hat if he got a bad chip? what if someone found out something he didn't know? what if there is a review that actually overclocks the chip, looks at power consumption, and takes price/performance into account. im not saying its a bad review or anything just we need to have more no matter how credible the source is and theres more information we need to know. how the chip performs at stock is not a buying point for me.
    offcourse you got a good point but i was pointing to people that don't like the results so they will just attack the OP and say that it is not credible .
    Intel Core I7 920 @ 3.8GHZ 1.28V (Core Contact Freezer)
    Asus X58 P6T
    6GB OCZ Gold DDR3-1600MHZ 8-8-8-24
    XFX HD5870
    WD 1TB Black HD
    Corsair 850TX
    Cooler Master HAF 922

  20. #245
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    970
    Benchmarks have been run largely unchanged for the last decade, and it has been a very flawed way of discerning hardware's performance, from the beggining. It is certainly beneficial to whichever company can afford to have the most software optimized in their favor, but still isn't an accurate way of deciding which architecture best fits an individuals needs, IMO.

    For example, if I wanted to calculate Pi to 1 million digits, would I use SuperPi, or another software that can do it in a fraction of the time,
    -Would it make more sense to go spend $1000 on a new system, or download a faster, 500kB program for free.

    Or if I wanted a good compression utility,
    -Would it make more sense to spend $1000 on a new system, or download a faster, freeware version of a multi-threaded compression utility.

    Or if I wanted a good encoder/transcoder,
    -Would it make more sense to spend $1000 on a new system, or download a faster, freeware(or <$50 purchase) version of software that increases the speed exponentially.


    To me it's a no-brainer. Looking at a round of graphs, and making your purchasing decisions on which bar is longer or shorter in generic benchmark suites, is old school. Why would I use software that's slower than an alternative piece of sofware, it makes zero sense.
    If, for example, 7zip compresses my file faster than WinRar, why on God's green earth would I use WinRar, regardless if i'm using an Intel or AMD based system. What it comes down to is, which combination of hardware of software gives me the best user experience, and which one gives me the best perf/$. These standardized benchmarketing practices need to evolve for a change, and give potential consumers a chance to make a real informed decision on what's best for them. The way hardware is reviewed currently is the same old status quo that means nothing in the end.

    Unless it's professional software, in which case the decision makers are a little bit more informed than to base judgement off these kinds of tests.

    About the only thing that makes any sense are gaming benchmarks, where their isn't alternative software that can completely skew results and conclusions.

    So, since it's clear that software is just as important as hardware in evaluating performance, new review sites need to change that status quo, and focus alot more on what's actually best for the consumer, IMO.

  21. #246
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleZero View Post
    So a site that nobody knows, an not even a "let's wait for credible sources", from the usual suspects?? lol x10, even more when there are already conclusions and numbers, about deneb on this forum, made by respectable members, that are a "little" different from the results on this review


    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._12.html#sect0

    i7 920 with GTX216 1280*1024 = 275

    i7 965 with medium quality with HD4870 at only 1024*768 = 108


    http://www.techspot.com/review/124-i...65/page12.html

    i7 920 with low quality, GTX216 1280*1024 = 177

    i7 965 with low quality, with GTX 280 at only 800*600 = 110

    So guess what, either the GTX216 is ubber better then the HD4870 & GTX280, and we all know the answer, or Intel should hire the guys that made the review for the R&B department, cause they can really improve a cpu.


    And Zucker2k, nice late try, but you're to late for the troll of the year award.
    because you accusing me that ...

    take this rar with screenshots from farcry2 with an Core i7 965 @ 920 clock speeds

    http://rapidshare.com/files/177003564/hole.rar.html.

    if you want i can show you way more because nothing is fake or "weird"








    btw

    x264 HD encoding Benchmark added

    http://www.hwbox.gr/showthread.php?t=3189&garpg=16

  22. #247
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lubbock, Texas
    Posts
    2,133
    Quote Originally Posted by flippin_waffles View Post
    Benchmarks have been run largely unchanged for the last decade, and it has been a very flawed way of discerning hardware's performance, from the beggining. It is certainly beneficial to whichever company can afford to have the most software optimized in their favor, but still isn't an accurate way of deciding which architecture best fits an individuals needs, IMO.

    For example, if I wanted to calculate Pi to 1 million digits, would I use SuperPi, or another software that can do it in a fraction of the time,
    -Would it make more sense to go spend $1000 on a new system, or download a faster, 500kB program for free.

    Or if I wanted a good compression utility,
    -Would it make more sense to spend $1000 on a new system, or download a faster, freeware version of a multi-threaded compression utility.

    Or if I wanted a good encoder/transcoder,
    -Would it make more sense to spend $1000 on a new system, or download a faster, freeware(or <$50 purchase) version of software that increases the speed exponentially.


    To me it's a no-brainer. Looking at a round of graphs, and making your purchasing decisions on which bar is longer or shorter in generic benchmark suites, is old school. Why would I use software that's slower than an alternative piece of sofware, it makes zero sense.
    If, for example, 7zip compresses my file faster than WinRar, why on God's green earth would I use WinRar, regardless if i'm using an Intel or AMD based system. What it comes down to is, which combination of hardware of software gives me the best user experience, and which one gives me the best perf/$. These standardized benchmarketing practices need to evolve for a change, and give potential consumers a chance to make a real informed decision on what's best for them. The way hardware is reviewed currently is the same old status quo that means nothing in the end.

    Unless it's professional software, in which case the decision makers are a little bit more informed than to base judgement off these kinds of tests.

    About the only thing that makes any sense are gaming benchmarks, where their isn't alternative software that can completely skew results and conclusions.

    So, since it's clear that software is just as important as hardware in evaluating performance, new review sites need to change that status quo, and focus alot more on what's actually best for the consumer, IMO.
    well said.

  23. #248
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,918
    nice review 1 request can you add more game tests like grid and nfs undercover
    Amd Nvidia/Ati -3dmark06 scorebord revisted

    asus L1N64-ws or /b depending on bios chip
    4x1gig 8500 gkill bpk
    2x opteron 8224 @ 3.8ghz
    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=236
    vga= 8800gt
    winxp pro

    custom chiller -31 water
    2x dtek fuzions
    bix3-with x3panaflo hi output
    antec 850 quattro

    heat under msimax abitmax and dfimax

  24. #249
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by OverClocker_gr View Post


    btw

    x264 HD encoding Benchmark added

    http://www.hwbox.gr/showthread.php?t=3189&garpg=16
    now that has just sold me if true, i do alot of encoding here...

  25. #250
    X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hellas-->Athens
    Posts
    1,326
    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleZero View Post
    So a site that nobody knows, an not even a "let's wait for credible sources", from the usual suspects?? lol x10, even more when there are already conclusions and numbers, about deneb on this forum, made by respectable members, that are a "little" different from the results on this review


    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._12.html#sect0

    i7 920 with GTX216 1280*1024 = 275

    i7 965 with medium quality with HD4870 at only 1024*768 = 108


    http://www.techspot.com/review/124-i...65/page12.html

    i7 920 with low quality, GTX216 1280*1024 = 177

    i7 965 with low quality, with GTX 280 at only 800*600 = 110

    So guess what, either the GTX216 is ubber better then the HD4870 & GTX280, and we all know the answer, or Intel should hire the guys that made the review for the R&B department, cause they can really improve a cpu.


    And Zucker2k, nice late try, but you're to late for the troll of the year award.
    Are you serious with the things you are saying? ? ?

    What it is most possible? A small "credible" site or a huge "credible" site?

    Think before you post, and if you wish i am paying you the tickets to come to Greece and review with us, and let us know again if we are making real reviews or bs .
    When Mercedes brought their C111 to Talledega years ago and blew away the closed course record did it count? Yes..
    That was a "factory" car and a "one of" that no one could buy and was never sold.
    Records are records and that is a fact so get over it.

Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •