AMD Phenom II 920 & 940 Full Review

[Zucker2k]

cut the crap, phenom2 is much more then something with q6600 performance...

Sorry, I don't debate blind fanboys!

Edit: I love your sig; gives me a warm feeling.

[OverClocker_gr]

- Sysmark/PCmark (i think i am the only one who likes it)
- 3dx max and photoshop
- encoding (x264,divx and mp3)

and just for kick, always include superpi

thanx.


I dont think that pi represents overall performance

[Dami3n]

Worse than i expected.

[Extelleron]

I think you make a BIG mistake here my friend...
PII with IMC is Better from Q6600...... FAR FAR BETTER .... believe me.
IMC is a miracle when you see the response on Desktop apps.
I have my Q6600 at 3.6Ghz for 24/7 use but my old OPTERON 165 running on 2.6 GHz has SUPERIOR Response.

I believe AM3 & DDR3 will be more competive on i7 and much much cheaper.

So now we see the "slower but smoother" argument arise again........

I've owned a S939 Opteron, AM2 X2, AM2+ Phenom, LGA 775 E8400, and now a Core i7........... once you get to dual core and above, there is no difference in "response" on desktop apps. The i7 is no smoother than the E8400 when using IE and MS Word. A CPU having an IMC has nothing to do with response time on desktop apps. Memory performance might (to an extent) yet Phenom with its L3 cache has high memory latency and it doesn't really access memory much faster at all than the Core 2 CPUs. An IMC is not a magical device, it enables faster memory performance and that is all. You see a difference in response on desktop apps when you are comparing a P4 1GB system versus a modern quad-core/4GB system, not comparing two modern high end systems.

[Eson]

If a review site has superpi then i will never look at that site ever again.

[Tiridum]

Sorry, I don't debate blind fanboys!

sure no problem

the way I see it:

• phenom2 = similar performance with Core2 (5% in both directions)
• phenom2 does have a small die size, much smaller then i7 so they can sell it cheaper then any i7
• phenom2 uses a much cheaper platform then i7
• phenom2 isn't a competitor for i7
• phenom2 is a very nice midrange cpu, low watts, low temp
• people can finally start choosing amd again, because their performance really sucked with agena

even though i have a Intel E8400, I really like to buy a deneb if overclocks are good, i don't care about stockspeeds

[Tiridum]

I dont think that pi represents overall performance

i know, it doesn't, that is the reason why is said, just for kicks
pi is the worst benchmark for comparing cpu's, but many people use it for benching
but i wouldn't include it in a real review

[demonkevy666]

i know, it doesn't, that is the reason why is said, just for kicks
pi is the worst benchmark for comparing cpu's, but many people use it for benching
but i wouldn't include it in a real review

GENERIC CPU BENCH FTW.

[Zucker2k]

Alright then, anyone care to do a 1:1 comparison; PII vs Q9550

Per Tiridium's comparison above:

1. Performance
2. die size
3. platform
4. wattage/temps

That's a fair comparison right? Now, you should see clearly how farbehind AMD is.

[Spacemaster]

Alright then, anyone care to do a 1:1 comparison; PII vs Q9550

Per Tiridium's comparison above:

1. Performance
2. die size
3. platform
4. wattage/temps

That's a fair comparison right? Now, you should see clearly how farbehind AMD is.

I will do that son for my site

[roofsniper]

sure no problem

the way I see it:

• phenom2 = similar performance with Core2 (5% in both directions)
• phenom2 does have a small die size, much smaller then i7 so they can sell it cheaper then any i7
• phenom2 uses a much cheaper platform then i7
• phenom2 isn't a competitor for i7
• phenom2 is a very nice midrange cpu, low watts, low temp
• people can finally start choosing amd again, because their performance really sucked with agena

even though i have a Intel E8400, I really like to buy a deneb if overclocks are good, i don't care about stockspeeds

yea i see it the same as well. i am very impressed with i7s performance. they made a pretty nice cpu. but we have to face the facts here. most people buy cpus for things other than running sandra all day or everest. people buy them to actually use them. like playing games. the game performance of the phenom II was good whether you believe it or not. when you are running games that get 150+ fps you can hardly say that i7 destroys the amd cpu when it gets 300 and the amd gets 150. who needs 300 fps? we have to look at a realistic situation. with games that have fps at around 70 or below the phenom is getting close performance to i7. plus it gets lower temps and appears to overclock better. not to mention that its platform is cheaper. so when you look at it yes it gets destroyed by i7 in most of the benchmarks but you have to look at it with the facts that matter. and i would surely accept 55 fps instead of 60 fps for half the price, lower temps, and a chance to overclock it to possibly get the same or better performance than its competing chips. phenom II is a winner in my books even tho its performance can't even match i7.

[AbelJemka]

I don't see why people saying failed...
Performance is in the same league as Penryn.
If PII suck Penryn suck to so everybody go buy i7!

Alright then, anyone care to do a 1:1 comparison; PII vs Q9550

Per Tiridium's comparison above:

1. Performance
2. die size
3. platform
4. wattage/temps

That's a fair comparison right? Now, you should see clearly how farbehind AMD is.

1. Performance in on par
2. What's PII die size?
3. Same no?
4. Don't know?
bonus 5. Don't know exact price.
With s much unknow factor you can conclude?

[gosh]

So now we see the "slower but smoother" argument arise again........

I've owned a S939 Opteron, AM2 X2, AM2+ Phenom, LGA 775 E8400, and now a Core i7........... once you get to dual core and above, there is no difference in "response" on desktop apps. T

OT
Do you have a 1280x1024 monitor and only using one applicaton?

The difference is huge if you practice multitasking (use many applications)

On topic.
Nice to see revievs comming

[amdcian]

I think cut-price Deneb is necessary to AMD this time

[Zucker2k]

yea i see it the same as well. i am very impressed with i7s performance. they made a pretty nice cpu. but we have to face the facts here. most people buy cpus for things other than running sandra all day or everest. people buy them to actually use them. like playing games. the game performance of the phenom II was good whether you believe it or not. when you are running games that get 150+ fps you can hardly say that i7 destroys the amd cpu when it gets 300 and the amd gets 150. who needs 300 fps? we have to look at a realistic situation. with games that have fps at around 70 or below the phenom is getting close performance to i7. plus it gets lower temps and appears to overclock better. not to mention that its platform is cheaper. so when you look at it yes it gets destroyed by i7 in most of the benchmarks but you have to look at it with the facts that matter. and i would surely accept 55 fps instead of 60 fps for half the price, lower temps, and a chance to overclock it to possibly get the same or better performance than its competing chips. phenom II is a winner in my books even tho its performance can't even match i7.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if performance/cost is your thing, then the Q6600 is your chip, cheap platform, cheap processor. If you want low temps and low wattage in addition, then Q9450/Q9550 are your chips.

[LiquidReactor]

Hey how did you guys test Warhead fps? Did you use one of the cpu tests provided or did you do fraps runs.

[[XC] Synthetickiller]

why?
Whats wrong with the destroyer and 260GTX(216SP)?
We have also Asus M3A79T but the destroyer is much better board.
At tests i ve done they have exactly the same performance.



Q6600 was at defaults(2.4G)

I think he's extrapolating the performance with simple math, not thinking the Q6600 was OC'd.

I could be entirely wrong though, just seemed that way.

Sly Fox, you're right...

I'm looking at a q6600 OC'd to 2.8 and 3.0 ghz. Phenom II looks like it scales just as a q6600 g0.

I think comparing all chips OC'd or underclocked to the same frequency (2.8 ghz maybe) would be something much more interesting.

I think for people with their current AMD set ups, this is a good chip, if the price is right. Otherwise, intel never missed a beat.

[demonkevy666]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if performance/cost is your thing, then the Q6600 is your chip, cheap platform, cheap processor. If you want low temps and low wattage in addition, then Q9450/Q9550 are your chips.

and deneb would beat then in power use. ( I'm not going to says anything about temps though)

[OverClocker_gr]

Sly Fox, you're right...

I'm looking at a q6600 OC'd to 2.8 and 3.0 ghz. Phenom II looks like it scales just as a q6600 g0.

I think comparing all chips OC'd or underclocked to the same frequency (2.8 ghz maybe) would be something much more interesting.

I think for people with their current AMD set ups, this is a good chip, if the price is right. Otherwise, intel never missed a beat.

As i said before, these days we are also working @ clock to clock comparison @ 3.1

deneb vs kentsfield vs yorkfield vs bloomfiled.

As soon as we finished it i ll report back

[AbelJemka]

I think cut-price Deneb is necessary to AMD this time

You don't even know the price

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if performance/cost is your thing, then the Q6600 is your chip, cheap platform, cheap processor. If you want low temps and low wattage in addition, then Q9450/Q9550 are your chips.

Again you don' know temps nor PII wattage.
That's not even extrapolation nor speculation, your claims are just pure imagination...

[ownage]

and deneb would beat then in power use. ( I'm not going to says anything about temps though)

Why do you think Deneb will beat Yorkfield in power consumption?
Any sources to back it up?

[demonkevy666]

You think Denem beats this? The chip comes with a default 3.5v! Yikes!

Originally posted by Shintai:

I highly doubt any chip could use that little watts

[Zucker2k]

I highly doubt any chip could use that little watts

Better believe it. I pulled my original post because those were dualcores, but for quad, double that.

[Tiridum]

Hahaha, too bad you deleted your post zucker2

claiming the phenom2 uses 3.5V

well the phenom uses SOI, nehalem uses HKMG bulk cmos, these are completely different, so defining power consumption by looking at the voltage of phenom2 is rather dumb

[biohead]

you sure it isn't 3.7v?

just drop it, this isn't helping anyone. this is like jehovas telling you what to believe. just let people decide for themselves, there's some fine technology on both ends.