AMD Phenom II 920 & 940 Full Review

[Glow9]

in about an hour or so we will add X264 enconding comparison between

Q6600,Q9450,Q9550,i7 920 , pii 920 + 940

how bout with all them OCed make things interesting

[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.

[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.

[.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.

[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.

[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

[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...

[PetNorth]

x264 HD encoding Benchmark added

http://www.hwbox.gr/showthread.php?t=3189&garpg=16

thanks for this real world app (I use x264 for all my encoding jobs ) btw it shows a very similar perf between Yorkfield and Deneb.

Can you run this another encoding bench (HD Windows Media)?

http://www.rwlabs.com/category.php?page=wme

And 7-zip benchmark? (it's free and I think a very common used app, at least it's my all day archiving prog)

Thanks.

[OverClocker_gr]

thanks for this real world app (I use x264 for all my encoding jobs ) btw it shows a very similar perf between Yorkfield and Deneb.

Can you run this another encoding bench (HD Windows Media)?

http://www.rwlabs.com/category.php?page=wme

And 7-zip benchmark? (it's free and I think a very common used app, at least it's my all day archiving prog)

Thanks.

guys, i dont have that much time sorry

[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 .