AMD Phenom II 940 "Xtremely" Benchmarked

[dattimr]

That board is AM2+ Datt. Still, never seen it on Newegg. I thought AMD abandoned 790X, whats the point of it now with 790GX.

Yeah, I knew it, Spat, but I just found it a beauty and it's a new one. BTW, the point is that it should be at least 15$ cheaper than the 790GX ones (which aren't that much cheap, if you ask me). It's supposed to run cooler also, since it doesn't feature integrated graphics. But if the price is too close to that of 790GX boards, then I agree it makes no sense.

 

[amdfangirl]

790GX is more expensive to make?

 

[dattimr]

790GX is more expensive to make?

It's more expensive to buy, at least. The 790Xs should be disabled 790GXs, I guess, just like P45s, in case of Intel.

 

[dattimr]

By the way, have you been playing Left4Dead with Jimmy, amdfangirl? Geez, I wanna play with you, people, but I'm currently testing the "unofficial Russian edition"... 50$, that's a steal, come on, I love it, but 50$? I'll buy it when it gets to 30$, at least. How is that 690G doing? I have one, but have only tested the game with my 4670. It runs flawlessly, but it stunts a little on the beginning (X2 4400+). Gotta get me a Phenomenal CPU.

 

[Just_An_Engineer]

It's more expensive to buy, at least. The 790Xs should be disabled 790GXs, I guess, just like P45s, in case of Intel.

I'm not so sure about the 790X being a 790GX with the IGP disabled as the 790X existed for several months before the 790GX was released. Originally it was the budget alternative to the 790FX as the only difference was the number of x16 slots. I remember that when the 790GX was released with the SB750 there was some confusion as to why the motherboard makers weren't pairing the older 790X chipset with the SB750 as having a crossfire capable board with an IGP is a bit counter-intuitive.

 

[dattimr]

I'm not so sure about the 790X being a 790GX with the IGP disabled as the 790X existed for several months before the 790GX was released. Originally it was the budget alternative to the 790FX as the only difference was the number of x16 slots. I remember that when the 790GX was released with the SB750 there was some confusion as to why the motherboard makers weren't pairing the older 790X chipset with the SB750 as having a crossfire capable board with an IGP is a bit counter-intuitive.

I wasn't aware of the 790X being launched before the 790GX, Just_an_eng. Thanks for the update. So, it's probably just a stripped down version of the 790FX? I guess so. Has it been shrunk to 55nm, though? It would be nice to know for sure.

 

[Just_An_Engineer]

I wasn't aware of the 790X being launched before the 790GX, Just_an_eng. Thanks for the update. So, it's probably just a stripped down version of the 790FX? I guess so. Has it been shrunk to 55nm, though? It would be nice to know for sure.

Can't help you on that one. I know that at the Phenom I launch the three AMD chipsets were the 770, 790X, and 790FX, all paired with the SB600. I believe that the 790X and 770 are both progressively more crippled versions of the 790FX.

 

[yonef]

Heres a nice oc. 4.2 on air http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=490528

hmm, looks fake 🙁
I have the same ver. of CPU-Z and same stepping of PII 940 and it looks wrong:
1) voltage is not visible (visible and correct on mine)
2) "AMD Processor model unknown" it says (mine says "AMD Phenom(tm)II X4 940 Processor")
3) Most Important: where it says Core speed, multiplier, Bus Speed, Rated FSB !? what the hell!? this is not intel. on mine says "HT link" as it should be on all AMDs

 

[amdfangirl]

It's more expensive to buy, at least. The 790Xs should be disabled 790GXs, I guess, just like P45s, in case of Intel.

Rather shove the failed IGPs into something like a 760g.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

hmm, looks fake 🙁
I have the same ver. of CPU-Z and same stepping of PII 940 and it looks wrong:
1) voltage is not visible (visible and correct on mine)
2) "AMD Processor model unknown" it says (mine says "AMD Phenom(tm)II X4 940 Processor")
3) Most Important: where it says Core speed, multiplier, Bus Speed, Rated FSB !? what the hell!? this is not intel. on mine says "HT link" as it should be on all AMDs

Look here http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=215130
I think if you look hard enough, youll find the answers to why this is different, but its all legit

 

[yonef]

hmm, couldn't find why. Can you be more specific? where to look?

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I was hoping youd find it. Its somewheres on ES, but cant remember where, and they explained why, and how. One of the early threads on P2. Heres another one, actually a WR on LHe @ 6.744
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=490292
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=215406
Once again, it shows the same

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

If I remember, its something to do with cpuz 1.49, the temps and voltage used, and something else, but Ive forgotten

 

[jed]

If i remember correctly this is the same arguement intel
p4 users had when AMD's FX chips where kicking their
butt's all over the place. It was meaningless argument
for them and now for phenom users too.

People in these forums look at these LN2 and LHe #'s
they mean nothing to a every day gamer like yourself,
the point is your never going to buy the equipment to
run your ph2 to those speeds, when you actualy buy
one, and no one else in this will either.
But we all understand thats the only card AMD has
giving you, so go ahead keep playing it player.

 

[yipsl]

I'm not so sure about the 790X being a 790GX with the IGP disabled as the 790X existed for several months before the 790GX was released. Originally it was the budget alternative to the 790FX as the only difference was the number of x16 slots. I remember that when the 790GX was released with the SB750 there was some confusion as to why the motherboard makers weren't pairing the older 790X chipset with the SB750 as having a crossfire capable board with an IGP is a bit counter-intuitive.

If Nvidia's doing anything right, it's putting IGP's on all their boards. While some here say they've never had a board with an IGP and they argue you can always keep a cheap card around for troubleshooting, what if the PCIe slot's bad? I've always preferred a board with an IGP as backup (or for troubleshooting without the GPU).

If the 880G's were coming out soon, I'd wait, but 3rd quarter could be September. I'll be counting down the days until February 6th and I can order the now unbelievably affordable Phenom II 940.

Anyone know if the 780G boards with SB700's overclock at all? Don't know if I'll need to, 3 gigahertz with an extra core and higher IPC is good enough as is for just over $200.

Finally shipped the 3870x2 out to Newegg a week before the warranty expired. They should have it by next Wednesday and I should have a replacement days later. I insured it for $200 with UPS so if they lose or destroy it then I can get a 4850. That I wouldn't mind!

 

[yonef]

I was hoping youd find it. Its somewheres on ES, but cant remember where, and they explained why, and how. One of the early threads on P2. Heres another one, actually a WR on LHe @ 6.744
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=490292
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=215406
Once again, it shows the same

OK, might not be a fake (which is a great news)
But I never seen CPU-Z to show "rated FSB" on my AMDs (tryed couple different ver. CPU-Z)

 

[keithlm]

If i remember correctly this is the same arguement intel
p4 users had when AMD's FX chips where kicking their
butt's all over the place. It was meaningless argument
for them and now for phenom users too.

If the P4 performance had been within a few percent of the FX chips running at the same frequency then the situation would be the same. Since it wasn't your conclusion is incorrect.

 

[jed]

If the P4 performance had been within a few percent of the FX chips running at the same frequency then the situation would be the same. Since it wasn't your conclusion is incorrect.

You where singing the same tired song about phenom 1 when
it came out, the lead was even larger for intel at that time.

Do you remember when AMD was riding high, they where be-
cause their product was superior to intel at the time.
Everyone knew and so AMD made money hand over fist.

Now in this time AMD has not made a profit for 9 quarters thats
because intel introduced Core 2 (Conroe), and right there and
then everything AMD had for desktop where then and still is
inferior to intels offerings.

 

[keithlm]

If the P4 performance had been within a few percent of the FX chips running at the same frequency then the situation would be the same. Since it wasn't your conclusion is incorrect.

You where singing the same tired song about phenom 1 when
it came out, the lead was even larger for intel at that time.

Do you remember when AMD was riding high, they where be-
cause their product was superior to intel at the time.
Everyone knew and so AMD made money hand over fist.

Now in this time AMD has not made a profit for 9 quarters thats
because intel introduced Core 2 (Conroe), and right there and
then everything AMD had for desktop where then and still is
inferior to intels offerings.

How does your reply refute the fact I mentioned?

But you did make a nice attempt at trolling in a thread about AMD. I give it a 2 because you didn't actually provide anything compelling to your argument; your attempt at obscuration did not add to your score.

 

[jed]

How does your reply refute the fact I mentioned?

But you did make a nice attempt at trolling in a thread about AMD. I give it a 2 because you didn't actually provide anything compelling to your argument; your attempt at obscuration did not add to your score.

show me where the FX chips had such a lead over the p4's.
now i know you like to talk about server apps. when it comes
to phenoms, but that aruement is over now the i7 will wipe
the floor with AMD best.

 

[keithlm]

How does your reply refute the fact I mentioned?

But you did make a nice attempt at trolling in a thread about AMD. I give it a 2 because you didn't actually provide anything compelling to your argument; your attempt at obscuration did not add to your score.

show me where the FX chips had such a lead over the p4's.
now i know you like to talk about server apps. when it comes
to phenoms, but that aruement is over now the i7 will wipe
the floor with AMD best.

And now you're going to change the subject because you realize you looked pathetic?

BTW: You brought up the fact that the: "AMD's FX chips where kicking their [P4's]
butt's all over the place". Why do I need to provide proof for something that you posted?

 

[jed]

And now you're going to change the subject because you realize you looked pathetic?

BTW: You brought up the fact that the: "AMD's FX chips where kicking their [P4's]
butt's all over the place". Why do I need to provide proof for something that you posted?

I'm not changing the subject the fact are just that, the FX was
beating the p4. the lead between the two was smaller than
the lead conroe has over phenom 1.
Now you were saying phenom 1 was better then conroe, so
i'm asking you how did you come to that conclusion.

 

[keithlm]

And now you're going to change the subject because you realize you looked pathetic?

BTW: You brought up the fact that the: "AMD's FX chips where kicking their [P4's]
butt's all over the place". Why do I need to provide proof for something that you posted?

I'm not changing the subject the fact are just that, the FX was
beating the p4. the lead between the two was smaller than
the lead conroe has over phenom 1.
Now you were saying phenom 1 was better then conroe, so
i'm asking you how did you come to that conclusion.

What I said was the following:

If the P4 performance had been within a few percent of the FX chips running at the same frequency then the situation would be the same. Since it wasn't your conclusion is incorrect.

Please note the use of the word "IF". In reality the difference between those two chips at the same frequency was about 30%-40%. This is a multiple of ten times the difference between the Conroe and the Phenom I. (And the sentence doesn't say ANYTHING about which chip is leading and which one is trailing. Apparently you used creative interpretation.)

And yes... you did attempt to change the subject: You attempted to change the subject by discussing servers which is a completely new topic. (And it is easy to discern by your wording that you meant it as flamebait.)

 

[Just_An_Engineer]

I'm not changing the subject the fact are just that, the FX was
beating the p4. the lead between the two was smaller than
the lead conroe has over phenom 1.
Now you were saying phenom 1 was better then conroe, so
i'm asking you how did you come to that conclusion.

Are you seriously even trying to make the argument that the P4 didn't get thoroughly spanked by the 939 FX's? Take a look at this comparisson from the Tom's CPU charts from 2004: =on&prod[1509]=on]http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2004/compare,433.html?prod[1417]=on&prod[1509]=on

This compares a 2.6GHz FX-55 to a 3.72GHz P4. Notice how the FX-55 either beats or comes very close to the P4 in every single non-synthetic benchmark despite being a a clock disadvantage of over 1 GHz.

Now lets step forward in time and compare a 3Ghz X2 6000+ to a 2.4GHz Conroe E6600: =on&prod[670]=on]http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/cpu-charts-2007/compare,366.html?prod[714]=on&prod[670]=on

I don't know about you, but an FX-55 at a 30% clock disadvantage matching a P4 is a heck of a lot more impressive than a E6600 at a 20% clock disadvantage matching an Athlon X2.

 

[jed]

keithlm and just an engineer you both are right i stand corrected,
my apology's to the both of you.