AMD Phenom II 920 & 940 Full Review

[roofsniper]

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.

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.

[Zucker2k]

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.

[demonkevy666]

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

[savantu]

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.

[justapost]

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.

[demonkevy666]

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....>_>...

[sundancerx]

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.

[AbelJemka]

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.

[roofsniper]

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.

[Glow9]

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.

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.

[.Tret]

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.

[DoubleZero]

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.

[largon]

Per your request:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1230302410
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1230302410

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...

[Blaber]

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.

[kemo]

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

+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

[roofsniper]

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.

[AbelJemka]

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.

[largon]

I too would've liked a comparison to Agena and power consumption figures.

[kemo]

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 .

[flippin_waffles]

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.

[OverClocker_gr]

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

[roofsniper]

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.

[msimax]

nice review 1 request can you add more game tests like grid and nfs undercover

[nunchucka]

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...

[GoriLLakoS]

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 .