AMD Phenom II 920 & 940 Full Review

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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.

[accord99]

I highly doubt any chip could use that little watts

Plenty of reviews have shown the 45nm C2Ds and C2Qs to have exceptional power usage. Like here where the QX9650 uses less power than a E6750:

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/14606/12

Or Anandtech's examination of the QX9650 which suggests it probably doesn't hit its TDP till around 3.8GHz

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3184&p=2

It's pretty evident that the Intel's mainstream dual-cores use 20-30W under full load while even the QX9650 only consumes about 65W.

[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.

[Tiridum]

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.

I don't state otherwise, basicly i think people have choice right now, if they want to buy a good machine, they buy a phenom2 or a core2, both are amazingly fast
but if you want to have the best pc around, you simply buy a i7, which is an awesome but rather expensive cpu(and platform)

i am just happy that AMD is getting a little back in the game, Intel dominating everything was getting boring (they still dominate a lot, but phenom looks promising)

[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...

[Zucker2k]

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

In case you missed it, I am running a Q9550, so I know something about wattage/temps of the eo caliber. Secondly, AMD's on die sensors are not calibrated to give you feeds from the hottest parts of the core, so the temps we're seeing are not actual core temps; I personally believe this is why even Deneb struggles after about 1.55v to overclock unless cooled considerably. Search for the shots. In the wattage department, 45nm C2Q is unbeatable.

[amdcian]

You don't even know the price

According the info I know from AMD supporter in my country, the expected price of PII 920 is about $230 and 940 is $275

But with this situation, AMD must slightly cut price to increase the competitive competence