AMD Phenom II 920 & 940 Full Review

[OverClocker_gr]

I only care about the winrar and gaming tests since the synthetic benchmarks are completely useless to me, and what amused me was how at 1280*1024 the i7 pwns but at 1680*1050 they choke and PhenomII/Q9550 take the lead.. I mean, who gonna spend a load of money on a i7 platform and game at 1280*1024??

indeed,this was very weird,so i switch to another mobo,vga and cpu because i thought that something was wrong.
Nothing changed at the performance.

[Dagalidis]

The Nr.1 reason for me to move on Intel side was the Gaming Performance.
From what i've seen, right now, AMD is Back on Game Factory....

[Sly Fox]

The Nr.1 reason for me to move on Intel side was the Gaming Performance.
From what i've seen, right now, AMD is Back on Game Factory....

Yea, I remember some ads back in the socket 754 days from AMD targeting gamers specifically. That's always kinda stuck with me, that they do sometimes consciously target the gaming sector. Whereas Intel goes for the "all-around" crown mostly.

It seems that it's pretty clear at this point that i7 is the CPU to get for raw performance. But it also appears Phenom II will be fairly attractive for gaming and price. And honestly, the backwards compatibility is huge. Makes the Phenom adopters very happy I bet.

[accord99]

It seems that it's pretty clear at this point that i7 is the CPU to get for raw performance. But it also appears Phenom II will be fairly attractive for gaming and price. And honestly, the backwards compatibility is huge. Makes the Phenom adopters very happy I bet.

Why? I mean they could have gone Intel C2Q and already have the same or better performance in games. And given the competitive situation of the last 2.5 years and the incompatible nature of many Socket AM2s, I doubt the upgrade market is particularly large. Meanwhile, people who went with Intel aren't going to bother with at best a lateral upgrade.

[Zucker2k]

Why? I mean they could have gone Intel C2Q and already have the same or better performance in games. And given the competitive situation of the last 2.5 years and the incompatible nature of many Socket AM2s, I doubt the upgrade market is particularly large. Meanwhile, people who went with Intel aren't going to bother with at best a lateral upgrade.

Why do that, when you can wait 2 years for a Q6600 performance?

[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.

[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

[Spacemaster]

I just want to say that I expect this one, AMD is not better of concurrence but now is in the game, again. Let wait better tests with OC comparisions, for the final conclusion

[azraeel101]

indeed,this was very weird,so i switch to another mobo,vga and cpu because i thought that something was wrong.
Nothing changed at the performance.

Thanks for the confirmation.. May I suggest for future reviews you could use Team Fortress 2 and GTA4, these 2 are the most CPU bound games I've ever bought.. I don't have a chance in GTA4 multiplayer even at the lowest settings because my old X2 chokes and I get like10-15 fps, while I can play Crysis Warhead and get 30 fps with gamer settings in 1680*1050.

So yea, if I would be running Sandra and Everest benches all day on my computer I would sell a kidney and get an i7, but the only programs that are stressfull for my CPU are games so the Phenom II looks like the better option by far considering price/performance/watt/OC potential.

[Extelleron]

Sadly it looks like, when overclocking is taken into account at least, a Q6600 will still be a better CPU than the Phenom II 940 and likely be $100 cheaper. Deneb doesn't come close to matching Yorkfield clock for clock and it does not match Kentsfield per clock either. A 3.6GHz Q6600 will be more than competitive with a 3.6-3.8GHz Phenom II 940.

[demonkevy666]

well, i'd say in 1280x1024 the game is cpu-limited, but in 1680x1050 it becomes gpu-limited.

but your point is still valid: why such a dramatic decrease in performance. the i7 is often slower than a penryn or phenom. i7's raw power is amazing, but in games these "muscles" seem to be negligible. i have no idea why.

whatever, i'm not impressed by the first benches of deneb as well i was really hoping for amd to be on par with the penryns (clock for clock). unfortunately deneb struggles to catch up with the kentsfields clock for clock. now it really depends on the prices.
any news on deneb's power consumption and temps?

first of let me say all you forget to take into acount that the nb is sitting lower then current 9850 and 9950 and can be over clocked. and when you doo 200mhz of it can eqaul anywhere form .0.4-3% more performance

Yea, I remember some ads back in the socket 754 days from AMD targeting gamers specifically. That's always kinda stuck with me, that they do sometimes consciously target the gaming sector. Whereas Intel goes for the "all-around" crown mostly.

It seems that it's pretty clear at this point that i7 is the CPU to get for raw performance. But it also appears Phenom II will be fairly attractive for gaming and price. And honestly, the backwards compatibility is huge. Makes the Phenom adopters very happy I bet.

Sure dose.

Sadly it looks like, when overclocking is taken into account at least, a Q6600 will still be a better deal than the Phenom II 940. Deneb doesn't come close to matching Yorkfield clock for clock and it does not match Kentsfield per clock either. A 3.6GHz Q6600 will be more than competitive with a 3.6-3.8GHz Phenom II 940.

read above.

[Extelleron]

first of let me say all you forget to take into acount that the nb is sitting lower then current 9850 and 9950 and can be over clocked. and when you doo 200mhz of it can eqaul anywhere form .0.4-3% more performance



Sure dose.



read above.

The NB speed is going to affect performance by a few % at most. That's not going to be a factor. Overclocking the FSB on the Qxxx CPUs or the uncore on the i7 CPUs will improve performance as well, so if you are going to factor in OCing the PII 940's NB, you need to factor in overclocking the other CPUs as well.

The bottom line, that you really can't refute with the data that we have: A $180, 2 year old Q6600 that is about to reach EOL will match or beat the $250-300 Phenom II 940 when both are overclocked, and not even be that far behind at stock speeds. A $320 Q9550 will beat the PII 940 easily, at stock and especially when overclocked.

[Dagalidis]

Sadly it looks like, when overclocking is taken into account at least, a Q6600 will still be a better CPU than the Phenom II 940 and likely be $100 cheaper. Deneb doesn't come close to matching Yorkfield clock for clock and it does not match Kentsfield per clock either. A 3.6GHz Q6600 will be more than competitive with a 3.6-3.8GHz Phenom II 940.

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.

[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.

[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

[Wiggy McShades]

At 1680 x 1050 the phenom wins in far cry, equals the core i7's in crysis (the phenom 940 is one fps better than the core i7 920 with turbo off), and then loses in WIC. I don't see that as amd taking back the gaming crown and if you want a good bang for you buck set up q9550 looks to be a better choice compared to the phenom 2 940 for gaming. I'm disappointed in the phenom again, after owning a 9850 BE and now to see no real improvement is kinda sad.

[AbelJemka]

At 1680 x 1050 the phenom wins in far cry, equals the core i7's in crysis (the phenom 940 is one fps better than the core i7 920 with turbo off), and then loses in WIC. I don't see that as amd taking back the gaming crown and if you want a good bang for you buck set up q9550 looks to be a better choice compared to the phenom 2 940 for gaming. I'm disappointed in the phenom again, after owning a 9850 BE and now to see no real improvement is kinda sad.

Come on! Win or loss where?
On 1680x1050 bench biggest difference is 2fps!!!