AMD Phenom II Review Thread

[panfist]

Anybody who is complaining about Kyle from HardOCP's attitude, methodology, conclusion, whatever, failed to notice one important thing: the numbers in the HardOCP review are the same as all the other reviews on the net. They are just the only website online with the balls to state the obvious conclusion, that Phenom II does not have the balls to compete with Core2 or i7.

[Miss Banana]

Uhm, the numbers are completely different panfist, what reviews are you comparing it to?

[maroon1]

Your post is what makes no sense whatsoever.Kyle tests all playable resolutions ; you just have to turn the page.

What does that tell us ?

Phenom , Phenom 2 and Core hit a limit with tri SLI ; the video cards can do more ; the CPUs can't.

Core i7 moves the limitation on the video cards ; who wants the latest uber high end graphic cards ( geforce 295 , etc ) needs a Nehalem to make the card shine.

In a sense , the test Kyle performed is more relevant than any other gaming test on other review sites.

I totally agree with what you said

[Sr7]

Don't forget the fact that Kyle is such a clueless that he bans everyone who disagrees with him on his forums. Just scroll through any random thread and you'll likely find someone with the rank of "banned".. it's that prevalent.

One time he made a news posting about locking sata connectors.. yes the cables that lock so that they don't come off as easily. Apparently he just found them sometime mid last year and made a VIDEO POST about them, explaining how they work. A bunch of people replied "uhh I've known about these for years" and he got all defensive and started banning people. It was hilarious cause he's so clueless, and he's slowly but surely showing his inadequacies.

Just the other day I saw a thread where a guy posted saying "uhh who is this Kyle Bennett guy? he sent me a PM saying "tell me what other name you've registered under so I can ban you!!".. anyone know what's going on?" Kyle banned him for posting the PM publicly, and deleted the entire thread which many had replied to.

He's just some old has-been reviewer who posts garbage and plays "hard to get" with Intel/AMD/NVIDIA. He wants them to beg him to review their products like he is a deity. If they just ask him if he's interested in reviewing a product he'll just shoot himself in the foot and say no.

[Shaggy]

Anyone who keeps Brent on their staff is clearly an idiot.

I kid

I like hardocp's graphs.

[panfist]

Uhm, the numbers are completely different panfist, what reviews are you comparing it to?

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/dis...4_7.html#sect0
xbit: PII 940 (3.0GHz) is 10% slower than Q9550 (2.8GHz) in Unreal Tournament. In World in Conflict, Crysis, and Far Cry 2 the PII 940 is even slower than Q8300 (2.5GHz), Q9400 (2.6GHz), and Q9550 (2.8GHz). In Left 4 Dead, the PII 940 is slower than the Q9400 and Q9550.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sho...px?i=3492&p=18
In Fallout3, PII 940 is slower than Q9550. In Left 4 Dead, PII 940 is slower than Q9450. In Far Cry 2, PII 940 is slower than Q8200, Q6600!!!, Q9300... In Crysis, PII 940 is slower than Q9400.

I could go on. Why don't you show me some reviews that are different?

[FischOderAal]

Yes, Yorkfield is still a bit ahead but that doesn't make the so called review of [H] any better. Phenom II can compete if you take the whole plattform into account.

Q9650 3,0 GHz: 445 Euro ; Q9550: 295 Euro ; Q9450: 275 Euro
ASUS P5Q SE (P45): 80 Euro
4 GB DDR2 1066: 45 Euro
-----------------------------------
570 Euro ; 420 Euro ; 400 Euro

Phenom II 940 BE 3,0 GHz: 250 Euro
ASUS M3A78 (AMD 770): 65 Euro
4 GB DDR2 1066: 45 Euro
----------------------------------
360 Euro

Difference: 210 Euro ; 60 Euro ; 40 Euro

Based on this (german) review the Q9650 is barely faster than the Phenom II 940
http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/...#content_start
ComputerBase has a little different result:
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h...formancerating

So, I think the Phenom II is not a dumb choice If you notice any flaws in my calculation, feel free to criticize

[informal]

Don't forget the fact that Kyle is such a clueless that he bans everyone who disagrees with him on his forums. Just scroll through any random thread and you'll likely find someone with the rank of "banned".. it's that prevalent.

One time he made a news posting about locking sata connectors.. yes the cables that lock so that they don't come off as easily. Apparently he just found them sometime mid last year and made a VIDEO POST about them, explaining how they work. A bunch of people replied "uhh I've known about these for years" and he got all defensive and started banning people. It was hilarious cause he's so clueless, and he's slowly but surely showing his inadequacies.

Just the other day I saw a thread where a guy posted saying "uhh who is this Kyle Bennett guy? he sent me a PM saying "tell me what other name you've registered under so I can ban you!!".. anyone know what's going on?" Kyle banned him for posting the PM publicly, and deleted the entire thread which many had replied to.

He's just some old has-been reviewer who posts garbage and plays "hard to get" with Intel/AMD/NVIDIA. He wants them to beg him to review their products like he is a deity. If they just ask him if he's interested in reviewing a product he'll just shoot himself in the foot and say no.

Lol @ Kyle and hardO(n)cp. That dude is the definition of fail and his website is the substance of it.

[panfist]

Yes, Yorkfield is still a bit ahead but that doesn't make the so called review of [H] any better. Phenom II can compete if you take the whole plattform into account.

Q9650 3,0 GHz: 445 Euro
ASUS P5Q SE (P45): 80 Euro
4 GB DDR2 1066: 45 Euro
-----------------------------------
570 Euro

Phenom II 940 BE 3,0 GHz: 250 Euro
ASUS M3A78 (AMD 770): 65 Euro
4 GB DDR2 1066: 45 Euro
----------------------------------
360 Euro

Difference: 210 Euro
I rounded the prices up to 5 and 0 digits.

Based on this (german) review the Q9650 is barely faster than the Phenom II 940
http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/...#content_start

So, I think the Phenom II is not a dumb choice If you notice any flaws in my calculation, feel free to criticize

If you look at planet3dnow, the Phenom II is slower in every gaming benchmark across the board. Also...look at the name...3dnow...think they may be biased in favor of AMD?? If it weren't for the Everest Memory Latency benchmarks, the average % increase of the Intel processor would be much higher, and the Everest benchmark is about as synthetic and pointless as it gets.

Well...since the Q9400 is equal or better to the Phenom II why don't you recalculate your comparison based on the Q9400 price? I don't know the the Q9400 price in Euros.

If you picked those processors just because of equal clock speed, then you know that the Intel platform is significantly faster, clock for clock.

[Miss Banana]

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/dis...4_7.html#sect0
xbit: PII 940 (3.0GHz) is 10% slower than Q9550 (2.8GHz) in Unreal Tournament. In World in Conflict, Crysis, and Far Cry 2 the PII 940 is even slower than Q8300 (2.5GHz), Q9400 (2.6GHz), and Q9550 (2.8GHz). In Left 4 Dead, the PII 940 is slower than the Q9400 and Q9550.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sho...px?i=3492&p=18
In Fallout3, PII 940 is slower than Q9550. In Left 4 Dead, PII 940 is slower than Q9450. In Far Cry 2, PII 940 is slower than Q8200, Q6600!!!, Q9300... In Crysis, PII 940 is slower than Q9400.

I could go on. Why don't you show me some reviews that are different?

How about we take a look at a review that uses ddr 1066?
Techreport for example?
You will find that besides Crysis Warhead, the game scores are not bad at all.
Sometimes even comparable to core i7 920...


I don't understand why you so blindly quote reviews that made the same mistake as your beloved Kyle.

[ajaidev]

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/dis...4_7.html#sect0
xbit: PII 940 (3.0GHz) is 10% slower than Q9550 (2.8GHz) in Unreal Tournament. In World in Conflict, Crysis, and Far Cry 2 the PII 940 is even slower than Q8300 (2.5GHz), Q9400 (2.6GHz), and Q9550 (2.8GHz). In Left 4 Dead, the PII 940 is slower than the Q9400 and Q9550.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sho...px?i=3492&p=18
In Fallout3, PII 940 is slower than Q9550. In Left 4 Dead, PII 940 is slower than Q9450. In Far Cry 2, PII 940 is slower than Q8200, Q6600!!!, Q9300... In Crysis, PII 940 is slower than Q9400.

I could go on. Why don't you show me some reviews that are different?

You want to say that websites dont have bias against the phII. Just see this :-

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...m-ii,2119.html

PhII has a 3.64 Ghz Limit according to these guy's and the i7 is at 3.8 Ghz that also on air...





OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH myyyy GOOOd they are so blooddy arse holes they used a Ultra 120 Extream on the i7 and a tiny Ajigo MF091 on the PhII man if thats not bias you are stupid n a arse.


Also FYI i7 @ 3.8Ghz 24/7 on a Ultra 120 is very difficult and temps are very near 90C "86-89" if even a bit of ambiance temp. increases you will get a BSOD.

[Rammsteiner]

In Far Cry 2, PII 940 is slower than Q8200, Q6600!!!, Q9300...

No need to bold that really since i7 cant even beat Q6600 in certain games

[marten_larsson]

If you look at planet3dnow, the Phenom II is slower in every gaming benchmark across the board. Also...look at the name...3dnow...think they may be biased in favor of AMD?? If it weren't for the Everest Memory Latency benchmarks, the average % increase of the Intel processor would be much higher, and the Everest benchmark is about as synthetic and pointless as it gets.

Well...since the Q9400 is equal or better to the Phenom II why don't you recalculate your comparison based on the Q9400 price? I don't know the the Q9400 price in Euros.

If you picked those processors just because of equal clock speed, then you know that the Intel platform is significantly faster, clock for clock.

Just look at this post were a lot of benchmarks are gathered together to get the FULL picture.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=228

Phenom II 940 is ~5% slower than Q9550 (9% slower than i7 920). Yeah, five percent. Does that make it a bad CPU? No. Does it make it a useless CPU (as the Hard OCP-review says)? Clearly not. Does it beat the i7? Quite obviously not. It seems as though the reviewer has either assumed Deneb would be the next performance king (which probably very few others did) or he's just biased reviewer.

[alfaunits]

Yes, Yorkfield is still a bit ahead but that doesn't make the so called review of [H] any better. Phenom II can compete if you take the whole plattform into account.

You'd buy 3 GTX 280 and not a better platform overall? ROFL. Give me a break.
And as far as "your" benchark sites go:

Based on this (german) review the Q9650 is barely faster than the Phenom II 940
http://www.planet3dnow.de/vbulletin/...#content_start

N/C for this site, it's so outrageous it's not worth the comment.

ComputerBase has a little different result:
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h...formancerating

Did you even look at FarCry2 graphs here?
You'd need to be blind, dumb and out of electricity not to figure it's ridicolous. All the test systems have a <5 FPS difference in all FC2 test. If that doesn't tell you something... I don't want to waste words (no I didn't mean something insulting )

So, I think the Phenom II is not a dumb choice

I agree, for new systems and for existing AM2 customers it's a wise choice even. For current Intel systems, or those who want the best, it's not a choice.

[FischOderAal]

If you look at planet3dnow, the Phenom II is slower in every gaming benchmark across the board. Also...look at the name...3dnow...think they may be biased in favor of AMD?? If it weren't for the Everest Memory Latency benchmarks, the average % increase of the Intel processor would be much higher, and the Everest benchmark is about as synthetic and pointless as it gets.

Well...since the Q9400 is equal or better to the Phenom II why don't you recalculate your comparison based on the Q9400 price? I don't know the the Q9400 price in Euros.

If you picked those processors just because of equal clock speed, then you know that the Intel platform is significantly faster, clock for clock.

Yepp. Figured that out, too I edited the post (I got to check my math skills xD).

[alfaunits]

The one that did a very "useful" FC2 review @ 1024x768? OK.... NOT.

How about we take a look at a review that uses ddr 1066?
Techreport for example?
You will find that besides Crysis Warhead, the game scores are not bad at all.
Sometimes even comparable to core i7 920...

[Miss Banana]

The one that did a very "useful" FC2 review @ 1024x768? OK.... NOT.

In higher resolution tests Phenom does even better.
http://www.ixbt.com/cpu/amd-phenom-2-x4-940.shtml

[FischOderAal]

Thank you for interpreting my words instead of reading my posts.

You'd buy 3 GTX 280 and not a better platform overall? ROFL. Give me a break.

Where did I state that? If I'd ever buy 3 GTX280 I'd go for what gives me the best performance, no matter the costs: i7
What I'm speaking of is price/performance, seems like you failed to notice that.

I agree, for new systems and for existing AM2 customers it's a wise choice even. For current Intel systems, or those who want the best, it's not a choice.

And where did I state that it makes sense for C2Q-owners to change to a Phenom II? I didn't, did I?

Did you even look at FarCry2 graphs here?
You'd need to be blind, dumb and out of electricity not to figure it's ridicolous. All the test systems have a <5 FPS difference in all FC2 test. If that doesn't tell you something... I don't want to waste words (no I didn't mean something insulting )

They are under "Realitätsferne Spiele-Tests", what means they aren't close to reality... This just once again shows how different the results can be.

[noki]

Panfist, go and buy your i7 to play worse than phenom 9950:

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

I know than i7 its a lot better than phenom II, but this is the same that you do, you only see what you want to see..phenom II doing bad..but it do well in some test, and here the core2quads paired with ddr2 fall behind phenom II

[VoodooProphetII]

I like the guru3d review. They used DDR2 1066, and tested the 1024x768 up to 1600x1200 in all game tests and the numbers were pretty close, with i7 ahead in all game tests at lower detail except for COD4 where the Phenom II with the 790 chipset has a 17fps advantage at low res, and 8fps advantage at high res. And in most of the games tests at high res the Phenom II will pull ahead against the i7.

[Mats]

I totally agree with what you said

Even tho P2 had 2 GB RAM, C2 4 GB and €i7 6 GB in the review?
Wouldn't you call it unfair?

[panfist]

Look, I am agree that Kyle didn't do the best job reviewing the Phenom II. There were plenty of variables and loose ends that he didn't tie up properly. If you read through the 700+ posts in the HardForum thread, I posted my beef there several times.

The fact is, though, that for an enthusiast the Phenom II doesn't look that appealing. If you are going to build a new machine from scratch, and you want it to be the fastest thing out there, or you want to OC it to the fastest thing out there, you are going to go Intel. Unless you already have a Phenom II compatible motherboard, then that kinda makes sense.

Look, I have money invested in AMD. I want them to do well. I want them to compete with Intel. Now, they are somewhat competitive, but really Intel is looming over them like a titan. A couple of strategic price cuts here and there, and Phenom II will be crushed like a bug.

Panfist, go and buy your i7 to play worse than phenom 9950

I have an E8400 based system for gaming, and an AMD based HTPC. I'm totally happy with them, and I probably won't be upgrading anything for at least a year.

[Donnie27]

How about we take a look at a review that uses ddr 1066?
Techreport for example?
You will find that besides Crysis Warhead, the game scores are not bad at all.
Sometimes even comparable to core i7 920...


I don't understand why you so blindly quote reviews that made the same mistake as your beloved Kyle.

Weren't you the one who pointed out to me that this is XtremeSystems.org not xtremebugetsystems? Most folks I know who own AM2+ own 800 and NOT 1066. So should they upgrade RAM?

So I was jumped because I said I'd wait for DDR3 support simply because of the difference in the results from DDR2-800 as compared to 1066. You're RIGHT there was an improvement even with that small speed bump between those two RAM speeds from different reviews. Before any Donnie27 basher jumps in, that's ON TOPIC because the reviews showed different result when faster and lower latency RAM was use. I didn't see that much difference of difference on my Wolfdale using 800 and tried 1066. I held on to the 800 and sold the 4GB of 1066 my system. I couldn't notice the small difference or increase in apps or games.

[Sgt.McRuff]

In [H]ard ocp review they used tri sli. Now wouldn't the PhII do better with tri-sli if the north bridge speed was increased? Say from 1.8 > 2.6 and 2.8

[Mats]

The fact is, though, that for an enthusiast the Phenom II doesn't look that appealing. If you are going to build a new machine from scratch, and you want it to be the fastest thing out there, or you want to OC it to the fastest thing out there, you are going to go Intel. Unless you already have a Phenom II compatible motherboard, then that kinda makes sense.

No one who were looking for the fastest had to wait for the reviews or the launch, the MSRP said it all: the X4 940 is a sub $300 chip, and the reason is that AMD knows exactly how competitive their product is.
It shouldn't be compared to the "fastest thing out there" because we're talking totally different budgets.

Besides, the prices haven't been balanced out yet: Intel haven't had any real competition in that low end 4C market, ever.
Now P2 shows up and at least it makes some competition.
Wait two months and see who has the best bang per buck chip then, when prices settled.
Intel, or AMD? Dunno.