Page 1 of 14 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 349

Thread: AMD Phenom II 920 & 940 Full Review [UPDATED with more tests]

  1. #1
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    212

    AMD Phenom II 920 & 940 Full Review [UPDATED with more tests]

    So,this is the follow-up of the first thread regarding the new Phenom II processor series review that we did @ hwbox.gr.

    here is again the link

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

    More 3d tests and 3d rendering added

    As i had mentioned at the locked thread, there is a clock to clock comparison in progress, on deneb vs agena@3000 and deneb vs bloomfield vs yorkfield vs kentsfield @ 3700mhz.

    Stay tuned for more

    Plz keep it clean

  2. #2
    c[_]
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    18,728
    Yes, do keep it clean and on topic.

    All along the watchtower the watchmen watch the eternal return.

  3. #3
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,215
    Thanks for the CAD and gaming tests.Now it looks much better
    I have a question regarding some bars in the charts.Is there maybe any mistake since some scores are weird: ie. Core i7 940 being slower than i7 920 model in some tests and Phenom II 920 being faster than Phenom II 940 in a one test if I'm not mistaken?

    edit:first chart on this page;also first and second chart on this page(phenom II and core 940/940 results are flipped it seems.respectively with lower clocked models);second chart on this page (core i7 940 with turbo is slower than 920 with turbo-again maybe the labeling on the chart colors was wrong?);
    Last edited by informal; 12-29-2008 at 04:01 PM.

  4. #4

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    72
    Thanks for the update

    was C&Q active when you bench or not?
    Phenom1 lost 10% with active C&Q, maybe its the same with P2 and without that it will look better for P2,

    And like informal says, some benches really look strange with a p2 940 slower than a p2 920

    sry,for bad english

  6. #6
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,215
    Quote Originally Posted by OverClocker_gr View Post
    Are you saying at the charts for the 3d render apps??
    Yep look at my edit in previous post,seems some labels/names of the chips used and associated with color bars, are flipped.

  7. #7
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands, Friesland
    Posts
    2,244
    Thanks for updating the review OverClocker_gr
    >i5-3570K
    >Asrock Z77E-ITX Wifi
    >Asus GTX 670 Mini
    >Cooltek Coolcube Black
    >CM Silent Pro M700
    >Crucial M4 128Gb Msata
    >Cooler Master Seidon 120M
    Hell yes its a mini-ITX gaming rig!

  8. #8
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    France
    Posts
    741
    In game benchmarks score are so closed...
    May be interesting for future review to see minimum fps
    AMD Phenom II X2 550@Phenom II X4 B50
    MSI 890GXM-G65
    Corsair CMX4GX3M2A1600C9 2x2GB
    Sapphire HD 6950 2GB

  9. #9
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by AffenJack View Post
    Thanks for the update

    was C&Q active when you bench or not?
    Phenom1 lost 10% with active C&Q, maybe its the same with P2 and without that it will look better for P2,

    And like informal says, some benches really look strange with a p2 940 slower than a p2 920

    sry,for bad english
    no,power saving mods disabled for all the cpus

    Quote Originally Posted by informal View Post
    Yep look at my edit in previous post,seems some labels/names of the chips used and associated with color bars, are flipped.
    for the far cry i ll check it out

    about 3d render apps, as they informed ,cause the nature of these tests there is a possibility of a delta about 1-1.5fps because they are more gpu related

  10. #10
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,215
    Ahh the error of measurement,it's possible.But still at those fps numbers the error margin is still a bit large(10%,as opposed to expected 3-5%).
    Thanks for the update again.Phenom II looks good in 3D render. and games.

  11. #11
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Strive for peace w/Acts of War
    Posts
    868
    Well, I still don't see that much of a difference as it was previously. The competition is still faster and even the low-end Quad puts up a good fight.

    Now, if someone is gonna quote me and say: Oh well, the competition is $500 more, blah, blah, blah.........Well, perhaps they misread the tittle of the site and it does not read: XtremeBudgetsystems.

    Seems like this tech it reaching its end, sort of like 5.1 Dolby Digital, no matter how much that is changed? Still remains as 5.1. On both camps that is.

    OverClocker_gr; any way that you can personally post some benchmarks while all CPUs are overclocked? That I'd really like to see. And I bet others as well.
    ASUS P5B Deluxe P965 BIOS 1236 | Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 G0 8MBL2 @ 3.15GHZ | G.Skill DDR2 800 F2-6400PHU2-2GBHZ & XTreem DDR 800 D9GMH - 4GB RAM Total | 4:5 Ratio @ 350fsbx9 | Tuniq Tower 120 | BFG GeForce 9800GTX | Seagate 2x 250GB Perpendicular HDDs RAID-0 | PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750W EPS12V | Samsung TOC T240 24" LCD Monitor |

  12. #12
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by informal View Post
    Ahh the error of measurement,it's possible.But still at those fps numbers the error margin is still a bit large(10%,as opposed to expected 3-5%).
    Thanks for the update again.Phenom II looks good in 3D render. and games.
    10percent?
    where?

  13. #13
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by OverClocker_gr View Post
    So,this is the follow-up of the
    As i had mentioned at the locked thread, there is a clock to clock comparison in progress, on deneb vs agena@3000 and deneb vs bloomfield vs yorkfield vs kentsfield @ 3700mhz.

    Stay tuned for more
    Quote Originally Posted by Nasgul View Post

    OverClocker_gr; any way that you can personally post some benchmarks while all CPUs are overclocked? That I'd really like to see. And I bet others as well.
    be patient

  14. #14
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    northern ireland
    Posts
    1,008
    Deneb looks not to shabby in the latest tests, But to be fair the q6600 also looked better, Are the rendering tests hdd bottlenecked because the q6600 at 2.4 hangs with deneb,penryn and i7 better than it should?
    Last edited by gallag; 12-29-2008 at 04:24 PM.

  15. #15
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,195
    in high res nehalem sucks phenom rules lol at least closes the gap dramatically

  16. #16
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    212
    Quote Originally Posted by gallag View Post
    Deneb looks not to shabby in the latest tests, But to be fair the q6600 also looked better, Are the rendering tests hdd bottlenecked because the q6600 at 2.4 hangs with deneb,penryn and i7 better than it should?
    no they are just more gpu related than cpu

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Viet Nam
    Posts
    53
    Not bad for a range $250 CPU Good jobs

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Spain (Valencia) - UK (Manchester)
    Posts
    81
    Is Q9550 a low end core 2 quad?? Only there are two faster.... I think Low end are q9300, q9400 6mb cache. The results look good for me..and waiting for the oc scalability.

  19. #19
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Serbia-Belgrade
    Posts
    585
    ... so 3.7 GHz for the all CPUs are next step ? can not wait
    Nice job mate Thanks one more time!
    Last edited by Spacemaster; 12-29-2008 at 04:33 PM.

  20. #20
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    970
    thanks for the additional tests for Deneb
    Main Rig:
    Processor & Motherboard:AMD Ryzen5 1400 ' Gigabyte B450M-DS3H
    Random Access Memory Module:Adata XPG DDR4 3000 MHz 2x8GB
    Graphic Card:XFX RX 580 4GB
    Power Supply Unit:FSP AURUM 92+ Series PT-650M
    Storage Unit:Crucial MX 500 240GB SATA III SSD
    Processor Heatsink Fan:AMD Wraith Spire RGB
    Chasis:Thermaltake Level 10GTS Black

  21. #21
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    France
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by Nasgul View Post
    Well, I still don't see that much of a difference as it was previously. The competition is still faster and even the low-end Quad puts up a good fight.

    Now, if someone is gonna quote me and say: Oh well, the competition is $500 more, blah, blah, blah.........Well, perhaps they misread the tittle of the site and it does not read: XtremeBudgetsystems.

    Seems like this tech it reaching its end, sort of like 5.1 Dolby Digital, no matter how much that is changed? Still remains as 5.1. On both camps that is.

    OverClocker_gr; any way that you can personally post some benchmarks while all CPUs are overclocked? That I'd really like to see. And I bet others as well.
    The title is not XtremeIsellmykidneysystems too
    Moreover if the review it's embarassing for PII like you seem to state it may be more for Yorkfield or i7 which also barely edge Q6600 in a lots of benchmarks
    Some will comes and speak about the advantages of Yorfield over Kentsfield : lower power consumption and temperature and overclockability. Problems it's that Phenom II may have the same advantage
    AMD Phenom II X2 550@Phenom II X4 B50
    MSI 890GXM-G65
    Corsair CMX4GX3M2A1600C9 2x2GB
    Sapphire HD 6950 2GB

  22. #22
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    496
    Thank you for the additional tests.

  23. #23
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    381
    Thanks man for the update!

    Updated (and extended) my previous summary too :P
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	piireview_hwbox.GIF 
Views:	8888 
Size:	169.7 KB 
ID:	91738  
    Last edited by PetNorth; 12-29-2008 at 05:16 PM.

  24. #24
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Front of computer
    Posts
    480
    Quote Originally Posted by OverClocker_gr View Post
    So,this is the follow-up of the first thread regarding the new Phenom II processor series review that we did @ hwbox.gr.

    here is again the link

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

    More 3d tests and 3d rendering added

    As i had mentioned at the locked thread, there is a clock to clock comparison in progress, on deneb vs agena@3000 and deneb vs bloomfield vs yorkfield vs kentsfield @ 3700mhz.

    Stay tuned for more

    Plz keep it clean
    Well this is very helpful...
    I have to say, that I am very impressed with the Phenom II 3DSMax rendering marks against the competition. Especially considering it seems to trail(or match) a Core i7 940 in some spots

    Any chance at all you will do some POVRay rendering tests?
    Also... what are the chances that we will see some benchmarks to show scaling(OC"ing).

    Thanks very much for your efforts.
    I've been contemplating picking up a Phenom 940 and I think this just did it for me
    Step aside, and you won't have to feel the awesome wrath of my mustache!

  25. #25
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    381
    BTW can you do a cinebench x64 quick run with Q9450 and PhII 920 to complete the summary?
    Thanks!

Page 1 of 14 123411 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •