AMD Black Edition - AMD Phenom II X4 3.4 GHz Processor

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

rahul babaria

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2010
107
0
18,690
AMD Phenom II X4 processor 3.4 Ghz is equivalent to which INTEL processor ?
Also which is the cheapest compatible software for the above AMD processor and does it get the max speed out of the processor ?
Also will future AMD processors 6 core support am3 socket ?
IMPORTANTLY prices of AMD are cheaper than intel are AMD products as reliable as Intel
 
Solution
keithlm
The PhII 965 generally performs between the i5-750 and the i7-920 when compared at "stock" speeds where the Intel chips are given the benefit of dynamic overclocking. The Intel chips require that dynamic overclocking to give the allusion that they perform better.

You can read all sorts of justification for why it is acceptable or not acceptable to use this "feature" in comparative benchmarks, but the fact remains that without it the Intel chips suffer greatly and do not compete as well as so many people often advocate strongly.

Given that fact which can be easily ascertained if you carefully analyze the available benchmarks, including the benchmarks that appears to show that the Intel chips "outperform" the AMD chips, we can...
Sort by date Sort by votes



My last 3 processors have been AMD and they have all performed very well without problems. I'm currently running an AMD Phenom II X4 Black Edition 3.0ghz and it easily overclocks to 3.5 with the stock cooler. Intel's next gereration of chips are faster than AMD, but the price is also greater.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The Phenom II X4 955/965 are fairly close to one another. And both of them rival the Intel i5-750 most closely. The i7-920 technically is not the chip to consider as a rival.

You also asked what is the cheapest compatible software. What on earth are you talking about? Software for doing what?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Technically the Phenom II competes well with the now EOL Core 2 Quad generation. The closest competitor in the I family would be the I5 750, which usually beats the Phenom II 965 at stock, and it only gets worse when overclocked.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

Tomshardware admins and mods ought to ban you for spreading such false information (which you know to be false) to would be buyers.

The Phenom II X4 965 is slightly slower than a Core i5 750 most of the time (sometimes faster but mostly slower). The Core i7 920 is out of the Phenom II X4's league performance wise (using CPU intensive applications).

Under games, they're all quite close in performance assuming they're all using the same GPU but this is due to games relying more on GPU performance (and being limited by GPU performance) than CPU performance.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
And who are you to say that? You've tried both systems? Maybe they should ban you.

It is a fact Intel is bribing everyone and everything and as such there is a great possibility that many sites are bribed as well. Or they just like monopoly so they want to spread the word... On rare occasions when benchmarks are true (no time to find them, maybe Jenny should jump in?) I5 cannot match PII. Why? Because all the sudden the CPU that has been beating or matching your precious pearl of an I7 could suddenly not even come close to an inferior product. Strange? Yes, it is.

So please stop with your ignorance and bias because these are forums and everything is disputable and everyone has a right to his own opinion. Isn't the thing that Americans are all proud of freedom of speech? Should someone who is not talking BS and praising the blue be banned? Please...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Facts are not up for debate and are not a matter of opinion. Facts are, in my opinion, the epitome of human reasoning, rationalizing and our ability to use these traits acquired through evolution in order to better interpret empirical data. To think that facts are up for debate is to insult human intelligence.

Sites being bribed is an assumption you and your kind (fact deniers) have come up with in order to cloud the debate. You don't really want to talk about facts and empirical data (because if you did you would then be in agreement with people who think like me and that's just not something you're interested in doing). What you want to talk about is how much you A. Hate Intel and B. Love AMD. You and your ilk (the Sarah Palin's of the world) will even go to great lengths (needing the creations of conspiracy theories) in order to support your non-empirical (non-reality based) world view.

In essence you want to live in a dream world where the things you say are true (a.k.a you want your opinion to be the determining factor as to what is true and not true). Sadly for you, we human beings have devised methods which we can use to determine fact from fiction. Two such methods are Mathematics and the Scientific method. Both of these methods contradict your worldview. All that you have to rely on is blind faith that what you think is true is true and therefore anything which contradicts it must be a conspiracy.

Seriously.. you ought to be banned for spreading mis-information.


PS. Those Tests which review sites conduct (reviews) are SCIENTIFIC in nature. If done right they end up using the scientific method. Now there are cases where we can find holes in their testing methodologies but we must use reasoning and rationalizing rather than simply throwing the results out of the window (which is a knee jerk reaction you and your kind like to participate in). For this we can use simple math based on other tests conducted at other websites which meet reasonable and rational criteria needed for comparison.

This is how I THINK... because I do think. You ought to try thinking rather than posting blatantly ignorant and outright insulting posts. You end up insulting all of our intelligence in thinking that you can trick us into believing the BS you post.

Worth also mentioning that you do have Freedom of Speech and you did exercise it but Freedom of Speech has reasonable limitations for which I think you have crossed. Oh and I'm Canadian not American.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote

I would agree that clock for clock wouldn't mean anything in this case provided that the author of this thread isn't looking at overclocking.

That having been said, most tests I've seen (amalgamated) show a Core i5 750 slightly ahead of a Phenom II X4 965 most of the time (ignoring high resolution gaming benchmarks as they're all pretty much equal there due to the logical infusion of a GPU bottleneck).

A Core i7 920 simply lays waste to a Phenom II X4 965 in terms of CPU intensive tasks (and even more-so when we factor in that most of these tasks are multi-threaded).

I am basing these statements on an amalgamation of tests from various sites (empirical observations whose results mirror one another). I am not basing this on a particular website which is currently my "favorite" simply because it tells me what I want to hear rather than the cold hard facts (as is the case with Cryslayer80 and his ilk who pick and choose websites which suit their agenda while denouncing all other sites, which contradict their world view, as being paid-off by Intel).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Because the OP is not going to be overclocking anything. He said this. Also which is the cheapest compatible software for the above AMD processor and does it get the max speed out of the processor ? That is not a overclocker my friend.

He was asking what cpu was the equivalent of the 965 on Intel's side. Nothing to do with overclocking. So the AMD having the the higher clockspeed is irrelevant in this discussion.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


Where did he specifically state this? I'm not implying that you're being dishonest I just haven't read that line.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote


This is probably the lowest I would go with a that cpu: ~$75
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128392

This is assuming you will be getting DDR3 Ram. If you have and want to reuse DDR2 ram, go for this: ~$75
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128376

By selecting these boards it is assumed that you have a graphics card that you will be using as neither of these have integrated graphics.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ah the degeneration of a thread.

Anyway, as to the original point of this thread, a Phenom II 965 is a little faster than a Q9550 and generally a little under i5-750. In come games the 965 can pull away from the old Q9550 and in some instances surpass the i5-750, but that is generally not the norm. You really should research such things yourself if you want to learn more.

If you are not going to be gaming then select a good board with integrated graphics based on a 780/785G chipset. If you intend to use one dedicated graphics card then you should consider 770 based boards as well. If you want to use two graphics cards that's when you start looking at the 790 series chipsets, or the odd ball ASRock 780GXE which allows for two PCI-E 8x slots much like a 790GX board.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The PhII 965 generally performs between the i5-750 and the i7-920 when compared at "stock" speeds where the Intel chips are given the benefit of dynamic overclocking. The Intel chips require that dynamic overclocking to give the allusion that they perform better.

You can read all sorts of justification for why it is acceptable or not acceptable to use this "feature" in comparative benchmarks, but the fact remains that without it the Intel chips suffer greatly and do not compete as well as so many people often advocate strongly.

Given that fact which can be easily ascertained if you carefully analyze the available benchmarks, including the benchmarks that appears to show that the Intel chips "outperform" the AMD chips, we can investigate how these "winning" chips would perform under less than optimal conditions. Apparently some people do NOT want to know how the CPU that cost more performs when it is not tested in the "optimal" conditions because when this type of testing is done the Intel chips do not perform as well as people keep claiming. Repeatedly.

Luckily some people are not fooled by these marketing "features". They read between the lines and realize that some chips which seam to perform better in optimal conditions are known to NOT perform as well under less optimal conditions. (i.e. read that as "normal real world conditions") But nevertheless you will still see many people telling others that they are the best thing to purchase regardless of operating conditions. So many people blindly accept this as "truth" regardless of any actual data that shows otherwise. Generally it is best to just let them have their illusion and not point out reality or they get militant about it.

As such it really all depends on whether you want the illusion of performance when running in optimal conditions or if you would rather have a chip that has the same performance in any condition.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom