AMD Phenom II 940 "Xtremely" Benchmarked

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/10841/world_record_phenom_ii_o_c_using_asrock_mobo/index.html

news_asrockdenebwrdec08.png


and some peek at http://www.legitreviews.com/article/849/1/
 
Not sure, but there was a quote from se who was there stating that the Crysis run, 940 and the i7 965, the 940 held its own, or was ahead. Ill look it up if youd like. Problem is, Ive been sold on the ocing, and am hopefull for the gaming end, but not as convinced, but who knows?
 
What I read was just that both held their own against each other, but I guess he was just talking about the "feeling" of the gameplay, since he mentioned that he didn't look at the FRAPS numbers while the app was still running.
 
I'm sold on the overclocking part too, but also on the gaming one.

Really, in spite of the different kinds of L3 cache that Nehalem and Deneb use, I doubt that a 3x cache increase (with lower latency, by the way) will give Deneb only 4-5% extra gaming performance.

I'd bet that's the "average performance increase" for "average apps", but not for games.

Still, Core 2 is king in games, no matter if i7 is just 3 or 5 FPS behind in most of them.

In my humble guess, Phenom II will outpace Core 2 in this area, so go figure.
 
Well, I cant find the original quote, but heres a quote of the quote heheh

"Originally Posted by EnJoY
.....Lastly, it's important to mention that in the Core i7 965 system vs Phenom II 940 BE Crysis comparison, I was able to verify that both systems were running the exact same graphical settings, with the same cards. Phenom II had 4GB of ram, dual channel while the Core i7 had 3GB in triple channel on an X58 Intel reference board. The Phenom II had higher frame rates throughout the majority of the gameplay."

From here http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=209771&page=12

Looking at clock for clock, many a time I was surprised by how ell the P1 did against Penryn. Now we have better IPC, more cache, and finally clocks and low power draw (just had to throw that in) so could be
 
Wins in: Games + Overclockability + Price = New Choice of Enthusiasts.

If it happens to be Phenom II, I can't help but think Intel would certainly release a new i7 EE (Emergency Edition), clocked at 3.4 or 3.6 or higher (supposing they don't make the same Preshot mistake).

By the way, Nehalem's design team is essentially the same of Netburst, isn't?
 
Yeah, and it would be quite fun (for both our eyes and wallets). Right now I can already see this forum engulfed in flames if Intel announces a new i7 EE close to PII's launch.

But, anyway, it really makes me wonder about i7 940, 965 + Core 2 QX9650 and QX9770 prices.
 
Well, as I said earlier, tho alot of people buy their cpus to watch their rar timings, a vast majority game, and itll carry much much more weight than a rar bench. Im thinking the Intel response would be to lower prices, and excuses would be
1. They were coming down anyways, as i7 was just released
2. AMD really cant afford to get in a pricing war with Intel
3. AMD will go under before this happens
4. AMDs stocks have lowered so it really hasnt helped
5. All the above
Or something like that
 


I was under the impression that Nehalem was developed primarily by a new team of Israeli engineers. I'm sure some of the folks who worked on Netburst were on the team, though... many Intel engineers have been.
 
It was earlier, I think. Ive seen it anyways. Yea, totally crippled. I remember the thread on it, and they actually could have done more to be more precise, but Im thinking NDA was in the way

Also, look at the minimum fps. Within 10% clock for clock on a crippled system with crap ram
 
But I find it quite impressive, nonetheless. Just take a look at the "crippled Opteron" vs the "standard overclocked Phenom I".

Probably, the L3 cache is really paying off big time this time.

Perhaps they have also 'unbroken' some part of the design, as well (supposing this part isn't the aforementioned L3).
 
Thing is, we saw nice lil bumps in the old K8s with their cache, and I wouldnt buy a 512 model, as the 1 Megs always did better. Looking at what Intel does, which is primarily add more cache , and that makes for most of the improvements we see from shrink to shrink, AMD is finally on board with this. Tho its not as "wide" as C2D nor i7, the cache is a huge player in all this, as well as tuning it in better to allow for higher clocks. Remember, even the P1's were ocing much better than at first, and thats only with minor tweaking. At first they couldnt even get to 3Ghz, or rarely/barely, now theres at least 1 doing 4Ghz, asnd many doing 3.2-3.4, as theyve just hit their sweet spot, besides all the tweaking, add that all up, plus the AM3 improvements, and I guess itll perform well. Still waiting tho. Itd be nice if for under 300$ you can get awfully close in gaming to the 965, with maybe a few wins here n there
 
Besides, the RAM is "crippled", since it has ECC (not to mention the slower HT links and NB frequency).

Rumors are that AM2+ Denebs will have the NB at 1.8 or 2.0 and the AM3+ ones at 2.4 or 2.6.

Other thing I've read somewhere is that current chipsets can't properly use HT3 at full speed, although Phenoms are already capable of it, so, the full 2600mhz would only be enabled when the AM3 chipset refresh strikes in Q2/Q3/2009.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom