AMD Phenom II 940 "Xtremely" Benchmarked

[dattimr]

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=209491&page=10

SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 4.45GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Inter-Core Latency : 76ns
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Performance vs. Speed
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 1.51MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Inter-Core Latency : 0.03ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Detailed Benchmark Results
Processor Affinity : CPU0-CPU2 CPU1-CPU3
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 2x 8kB : 4.38GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 4x 8kB : 4.65GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 2x 32kB : 4.87GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 4x 32kB : 4.85GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 16x 8kB : 4.66GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 2x 128kB : 5.03GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 4x 128kB : 4.72GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 16x 32kB : 4.77GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 64x 8kB : 4.40GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 16x 128kB : 4.40GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 64x 32kB : 4.58GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 64x 128kB : 2.66GB/s

Performance Test Status
Run ID : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor (Quad-Core, 3.01GHz, 4x 512kB L2, 6MB L3)
Platform Compliance : Win64 x64
Buffering Used : Yes
NUMA Support : No
SMP (Multi-Processor) Benchmark : No
Total Test Threads : 4
Multi-Core Test : Yes
SMT (Multi-Threaded) Benchmark : No
System Timer : 14.32MHz

Processor
Model : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor
Speed : 3.01GHz
Model Number : 9024
Cores per Processor : 4 Unit(s)
Type : Quad-Core
L2 On-board Cache : 4x 512kB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 16-way, 64 byte line size
L3 On-board Cache : 6MB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 48-way, 64 byte line size, 4 threads sharing

GTA IV benchmark - 3.0 ghz, 2ghz NB 2ghz HT 50 draw distance 100 detail distance 1280x1024 + Radeon 4870X2

3.6ghz 3dmark 06 1920x1200 (*note this is *NOT* the default run*)

3.0ghz, 2.0ghz NB

SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Multi-Media Int x16 iSSE2 : 170280iit/s
Multi-Media Float x8 iSSE2 : 223516fit/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Performance vs. Speed
Multi-Media Int x16 iSSE2 : 56.61iit/s/MHz
Multi-Media Float x8 iSSE2 : 74.31fit/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Performance Test Status
Run ID : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor (Quad-Core, 3.01GHz, 4x 512kB L2, 6MB L3)
Platform Compliance : Win64 x64
NUMA Support : No
SMP (Multi-Processor) Benchmark : No
Total Test Threads : 4
Multi-Core Test : Yes
Cores per Processor : 4
SMT (Multi-Threaded) Benchmark : No
Processor Affinity : P0C0T0 P0C1T0 P0C2T0 P0C3T0
System Timer : 14.32MHz
Rendered Image Size : 640x480

SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Dhrystone ALU : 41008MIPS
Whetstone iSSE3 : 34658MFLOPS
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Performance vs. Speed
Dhrystone ALU : 13.63MIPS/MHz
Whetstone iSSE3 : 11.52MFLOPS/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Benchmark Results
Cache/Memory Bandwidth : 40.74GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Speed Factor : 36.50
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Performance vs. Speed
Cache/Memory Bandwidth : 13.87MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Float SSE2 Cache/Memory Results Breakdown
Data Item Size : 16bytes
Buffering Used : No
Offset Displacement Used : Yes

Detailed Benchmark Results
2kB Blocks : 152.92GB/s
4kB Blocks : 190.88GB/s
8kB Blocks : 195.38GB/s
16kB Blocks : 198.55GB/s
32kB Blocks : 210.45GB/s
64kB Blocks : 185.46GB/s
128kB Blocks : 169.42GB/s
256kB Blocks : 151.32GB/s
512kB Blocks : 99.10GB/s
1MB Blocks : 84.62GB/s
4MB Blocks : 35.76GB/s
16MB Blocks : 7.52GB/s
64MB Blocks : 5.77GB/s
256MB Blocks : 5.77GB/s
1GB Blocks : 5.83GB/s

Performance Test Status
Run ID : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor (Quad-Core, 3.01GHz, 4x 512kB L2, 6MB L3); AMD ??? (9600); 1x 4GB DDR2 PC2-17200 (5.0-5-4-8)
Platform Compliance : Win64 x64
NUMA Support : No
SMP (Multi-Processor) Benchmark : No
Total Test Threads : 4
Multi-Core Test : Yes
SMT (Multi-Threaded) Benchmark : No
Processor Affinity : P0C0T0 P0C1T0 P0C2T0 P0C3T0
System Timer : 14.32MHz
Page Size : 4kB
Use Large Memory Pages : No

Processor
Model : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor
Speed : 3.01GHz
Model Number : 9024
Cores per Processor : 4 Unit(s)
Type : Quad-Core
L2 On-board Cache : 4x 512kB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 16-way, 64 byte line size
L3 On-board Cache : 6MB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 48-way, 64 byte line size, 4 threads sharing

Features
SSE Technology : Yes
SSE2 Technology : Yes
SSE3 Technology : Yes
Supplemental SSE3 Technology : No
SSE4.1 Technology : No
SSE4.2 Technology : No
EMMX - Extended MMX Technology : Yes
SSE4A Technology : Yes
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : No

Chipset 1
Model : ASUS ??? (9600)
Revision : A1
Front Side Bus Speed : 1x 201MHz (201MHz)
In/Out Width : 16-bit / 16-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 804MB/s

Chipset 2
Model : AMD (Family 10h) Athlon64/Opteron/Sempron HyperTransport Technology Configuration
Revision : A1
Front Side Bus Speed : 2x 2.01GHz (4.02GHz)
In/Out Width : 16-bit / 16-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 15.70GB/s

Logical/Chipset 2 Memory Banks
Bank 0 : 2GB DDR2 5.0-5-4-8 CR3
Bank 1 : 2GB DDR2 5.0-5-4-8 CR3
Channels : 1
Bank Interleave : 2-way
Memory Bus Speed : 2x 536MHz (1.07GHz)
Multiplier : 8/3x
Width : 128-bit
Memory Controller in Processor : Yes
Cores per Memory Controller : 4 Unit(s)
Maximum Memory Bus Bandwidth : 16.75GB/s

Benchmark Results
Int Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth : 11.18GB/s
Float Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth : 11.18GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Performance vs. Speed
Int Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth : 10.68MB/s/MHz
Float Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth : 10.68MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Int Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth
Assignment : 10.93GB/s
Scaling : 10.89GB/s
Addition : 11.49GB/s
Triad : 11.42GB/s
Data Item Size : 16bytes
Buffering Used : Yes
Offset Displacement Used : Yes
Bandwidth Efficiency : 66.77%

Float Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth
Assignment : 10.94GB/s
Scaling : 10.86GB/s
Addition : 11.49GB/s
Triad : 11.44GB/s
Data Item Size : 16bytes
Buffering Used : Yes
Offset Displacement Used : Yes
Bandwidth Efficiency : 66.76%

Benchmark Results
Memory (Random Access) Latency : 89ns
Speed Factor : 83.40
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Performance vs. Speed
Memory (Random Access) Latency : 0.08ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Detailed Benchmark Results
1kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
4kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
16kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
64kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
256kB Range : 16clocks / 5ns
1MB Range : 56clocks / 19ns
4MB Range : 86clocks / 29ns
16MB Range : 248clocks / 83ns
64MB Range : 266clocks / 89ns

Benchmark Results
Memory (Linear Access) Latency : 14ns
Speed Factor : 13.90
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Performance vs. Speed
Memory (Linear Access) Latency : 0.01ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Detailed Benchmark Results
1kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
4kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
16kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
64kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
256kB Range : 10clocks / 3ns
1MB Range : 22clocks / 7ns
4MB Range : 25clocks / 8ns
16MB Range : 44clocks / 15ns
64MB Range : 43clocks / 14ns

'Xtreme Regards' to Xtremesystem's iocedmyself

 

[roadrunner197069]

Wow, they finally can compete with Q6600 that is now at the end of its life.

I wont be impressed until they compete with core i7.

 

[Guest]

In their defense the Q6600 was one of the best CPUs ever made considering price and what other CPUs were in the market at the time it reigned supreme.

 

[dattimr]

Wow, they finally can compete with Q6600 that is now at the end of its life.

I wont be impressed until they compete with core i7.

First of all, Core i7 has been having a hard time competing against Core 2 outside of the synthetic/image&video editing/encoding world.

Also, the Phenom II 940 Cinebench scores looked impressive, but I don't remember the ones from Core i7, so I won't comment on this by now.

Second, do you have the numbers of a Q6600 (at 3ghz) paired with a 4870X2 in the GTA IV test and/or 3Dmark 06 - 1920x1200 (at 3.6ghz)?

 

[roadrunner197069]

Core i7 shines every where. Only place it dont is in single GPU setups.

Dont be hating the processor because the best single GPUs cant keep up with it.

Im not impressed by the cinebench at all. Here is some i7 ones.



Like I said, not impressed til they compete with i7.

Im happy you AMD fans can finally have the speed the rest of us had for sometime now.

3dmark 06 with 2 4870s and a q6600 3.6 is 22000+, I can get my buddy to give me a screenshot if you really need it.

 

[rambo117]

wootwoot! go AMD, bout bloody time you give us a "REAL" quadcore. not this phenom 2.6GHZ crap.

im saving my money for this new deneb CPU. looks like hope for all of us AMD people. i just hope that the rumors are true that some of the PhenomII CPUs will fit in the AM2+ socket.

 

[pr2thej]

Good enough for me, lets hope the price fits.

 

[rambo117]

Good enough for me, lets hope the price fits.

yes, that to

 

[pr2thej]

"fanboy".

7 posts in, new record?

 

[roofus]

it is irrelevant how it stacks up to i7. AMD is aiming this at the mainstream, not niche buyers. looks very promising!

 

[icyicy]

What's with the 3Dmark score? Something isn't right, the CPU score is way too low. An E7200 would have a score like that most likely.

 

[roadrunner197069]

Im not a fanboy, Im happy you AMD fanboys can finally have something similar to what everyone has had for quite sometime.

If the price is right, I will probably build quite a few AMD rigs.

I hope AMD can compete with i7 real soon. I love price wars.

Deneb is still slightly behind q6600 so they got a little more work to do.

I have a feeling AMD will price Denebs closer to i7 920 prices rather than as low as q6600. If they do it will be an epic fail. The only edge they will have vs i7 is you wont need a new mobo and ram to get a Deneb, so it will be a good upgrade path: however, if your building a rig from scratch it Deneb wont be the wisest choice performance wise.

 

[roadrunner197069]

Road runner your the true meaning of the word "fanboy".

Your the true meaning of the word, budget NOOOOOOOOOOB!!!!!!!!!!! with the junk motherboard and the e6300 CPU.

 

[rambo117]

Im not a fanboy, Im happy you AMD fanboys can finally have something similar to what everyone has had for quite sometime.

If the price is right, I will probably build quite a few AMD rigs.

I hope AMD can compete with i7 real soon. I love price wars.

Deneb is still slightly behind q6600 so they got a little more work to do.

I have a feeling AMD will price Denebs closer to i7 920 prices rather than as low as q6600. If they do it will be an epic fail. The only edge they will have vs i7 is you wont need a new mobo and ram to get a Deneb, so it will be a good upgrade path: however, if your building a rig from scratch it Deneb wont be the wisest choice performance wise.

hey! dont look down on us buddy
i am quite happy with my AMD gaming rig, sure id go for intel any day but considering the prices, im stickin with AMD

 

[Malovane]

Yeah, if you read the boards over at xtremesystems, it appears he may have some driver issues hampering his 4870x2.

And yes, his 3dmark score is low because it's run at 1920x1200, not the standard resolution...

 

[dattimr]

^ Yeah, I knew I should have written the resolution in bold.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

And this isnt fully tweaked either. At the same clocks, you can still do a few things to speed things up, just like i7 can, but not the older Intels

 

[dattimr]

Core i7 shines every where. Only place it dont is in single GPU setups.

Dont be hating the processor because the best single GPUs cant keep up with it.

Im not impressed by the cinebench at all. Here is some i7 ones.

[url]http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/160c2761e6c7c1cb902f1d9c245e8d022g.jpg[/URL]

Like I said, not impressed til they compete with i7.

Im happy you AMD fans can finally have the speed the rest of us had for sometime now.

3dmark 06 with 2 4870s and a q6600 3.6 is 22000+, I can get my buddy to give me a screenshot if you really need it.

Before anything else, please note that I openly state I'm a 'fan' of the Intel brand.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3448&p=17

It seems Anand found the results of i7-965 way lower than those of your 920 (although still higher than the ones I posted here for Phenom II), but, since you showed a screenshot...

Phenom I can already compete fair enough with the Q6600, except for the overclocking frenzy, but you're clearly misleaded if you think Deneb will lose for this one.

Regarding your friend's 3Dmark06 score, well, I don't doubt it, but in no way he's going to score that at 1920x1200. Not even at 4ghz. Besides, why the unfair comparison? Have you noted the resolution of the 3Dmark run I posted? Post a screenshot with his scores at the resolution I stated, but with a 4870X2 (you may argue the X2 results will be even better, but driver issues could make the results flawed and most of the components used in a useful comparison must be the same whenever possible).

 

[roadrunner197069]

I missed the resolution. My bad.

 

[roofus]

Here is some more to look at. I think they are respectable gains, not to mention the overclocking headroom that is rumored. http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-6100-view-AMD-45NM-deneb-benchmarks.html

 

[one-shot]

What's with the 3Dmark score? Something isn't right, the CPU score is way too low. An E7200 would have a score like that most likely.

My E6750 @ 3.7Ghz scores roughly 3200 on the CPU score. I don't think an E7200 is going to score over 4500 points. "Most likely", it will not score 1300+ more points than my cpu.

 

[EXT64]

Nice find. PII looks very promising. Also his findings (in the thread) that you can undervolt it significantly and stay stable explain something that has been bothering me for a while (which was, why are the AM3's 95W TDP and the AM2+'s 125W TDP). It now seems AMD just set the voltage a little too high on these and the AM3's will have this corrected.

 

[dattimr]

I missed the resolution. My bad.

No problem. I should have put the resolution in bold. Anyway, I really like the i7, but if Phenom II improves multi-gpu gaming too, then I would see little to no benefit in my next upgrade being a Nehalem. But if someone is into video-encoding and/or image editing (where Intel usually has the lead, like big time this time), then I agree it should cast all fears aside and get an i7.

For anything else, wait until the official Deneb launch just to be sure.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

It came out better than expected, sorta like the 4xxx series. This will be good for all

 

[soark]

Is it just me or the resolution of the CPU test in 3dmark runs at 640*480? independent of the chosen resolution?
I think the CPU test of the 3dmark is completely "separated" from graphics and i think it runs at a fixed resolution.