AMD Phenom II 940 "Xtremely" Benchmarked

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Well, yes.. i7 wasn't intended to be a gamer chip. It's true markets are the server and workstation arena. It will do alright in gaming, though the extra expense is not justifiable for what you get over a C2Q setup. More-so once you realize that i7 performs worse in many games than a C2Q. At first glance it is odd to see they released it for the desktop market first, however it seems they have a lot of work yet to do in tuning the chip for performance/watt for the other segments.

I'm optimistic about Phenom II's performance. The Vantage scores posted above show a pretty good gain in IPC over Phenom. My 9850 BE @ 3.5 Ghz gets a CPU score just a tad higher than the Phenom II at the stock 3.0 (10.5k vs. 10.1k). Other benchmarks show similar gains. Overall, Phenom 2 seems to be a cheap rough equivalent of a QX9650.

For video editing, I think we'll see more and more from ATI and Nvidia in the realm of acceleration in those tasks over the next couple years. There are large power gains to be had from moving the bulk of that from the CPU to the GPU, especially since the amount of FLOPS coming out of GPU's is increasing at an extreme rate. The CPU won't have that kind of power, unless it moves to some hybrid form (which could be what AMD's plans are with Fusion). And it doesn't stop at video editing. A dual 4870X2 system has ~5 TFlops of power. That's a lot of brute force, and people are going to want to exploit it.

So, is this AMD's strategy... to build a good gaming and server CPU, and build GPU's for apps, science, and editing (and of course gaming)?

If so, who will win... AMD or Intel?

 
" Well, yes.. i7 wasn't intended to be a gamer chip. It's true markets are the server and workstation arena. It will do alright in gaming, though the extra expense is not justifiable for what you get over a C2Q or a PhII setup. More-so once you realize that i7 performs worse in many games than a C2Q or PhII "
Corrected
 
It will be fun if ?Core i5? matches or beats i7 in "desktop things".

It's already fun enough that soon AMD guys might start touting "AMD for desktops ("who runs server-style apps at home, anyway?")" and Intel dudes "Intel for servers ("if it's good for servers, it's good for me too, since I do lots and tons and gazillions of multi-stuff")".

Oh, irony.
 
Yep, they've switched roles.

I have a question about Phenoms though. There's been all this talk that the Phenom II's are overvolted and they will run fine with a tenth or two knocked off. Can you undervolt them and still use cool n quiet? I know on the X2's you couldn't, but I thought the Phenom's had fancier power stuff. Also, did they ever fix CnQ so it plays nice with games? (on my 5400+ X2 I have to switch XP's power management to home/office desk so it doesn't do CnQ. If I let it some games will jerk.) Thanks.
 
The Q6600 is now an outdated CPU , although good for a budget build, but compared to AMD's Phenom it seems recent in comparison. Phenom II can't even compete with the Q6600 for heaven sake!! I mean Phenom II is around 20-30 % slower and still has the heat issues. Lets think for a moment folks 20-30% slower than a CPU released like 2 or so years ago, what a JOKE THAT IS!!

Core I7 is lightening quick and destroys last generation Core2Quads, then what hope does AMD's Phenom and Phenom 2 have? AMD has been completely crushed and humiliated. I have a Core I7 and I love laughing at AMD fankids who make stupid excuses "well AMD is aimed at the budget market" blimey give me a break PLEASE, A CELERON DUAL CORE CRUSHES A PHENOM and they cost less than a bus fare, ok that's an exaggeration about the Bus but you see my point.

Intel continue to crush pathetic little pointless AMD hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah AMD suck!

Thankfully the majority of sensible posters using this forum agree about AMD sucking
 

Why would the Cinebench R10 score be meaningless because it was ran on Windows 32 BIT?
Just curious. How much of a difference would there be, if it was ran on Windows 64 BIT?

I ran Cinebench R10, on my HTPC system. My Q9450 scored higher, except for OpenGL (I am using an HD3450).

CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************

Tester : NMDante

Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9450 @ 2.66GHz
MHz : 2.66GHZ
Number of CPUs : 4
Operating System : WINDOWS 32 BIT 6.0.6001

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon HD 3400 Series
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 2933 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 10087 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 3.44

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 2814 CB-GFX


****************************************************
Click to expand...

I would run it on Windows 64 BIT (I have Vista Ult. 64 BIT), but my HTPC apps don't like Vista 64 much.

Oh, and for clarification, I have 4GB of DDR2 800, but only 3.2GB is being addressed (32 BIT OS, of course).

Here's my HTPC CPU-Z validation, as well.
 


Why? Because if you happen to own a Core i7 or intend to buy a Phenom II you'll almost certainly run it in 64-bit mode. Windows 7 is 64-bit focused, so what's the point of a 32-bit benchmark? People won't buy those things to play solitarie or use 2 GBs of RAM (easily filled by the latest games).

Most reviewers don't use 32-bit systems anymore, just take a look at the articles from Anandtech, Extremetech, Techreport or any credible website.

Both CPUs will score higher in 64-bit, however, my point is that, if one of them improves 5-10% over the improvement of the other, then the picture starts to change.

There's an old Xbitlabs' article talking about AMD's x86-64 and Intel's EM64T implementations (Athlon vs Conroe), and the conclusion was that Athlon showed an average improvement of 5% over that of Conroe while in 64-bit mode.

So, if Phenom II wides the gap in 64-bit mode, it might be more relevant than its competitors. Core i7 will probably scale very well, but I don't think Core 2 will beat Phenom II in 64-bit, due its lack of macrofusion while in this mode.

It's still meaningful if you want 2 GBs of RAM or 3.something, but I really doubt you'll be seing a lot of systems like these in 2009, except for those people who only do net surfing and word editing or can't afford to upgrade.

Most gamers have already started to move on and don't regret it.

4 GBs is my minimum for an upgrade and that's what you'll start to see even in laptops (not crappy netbooks, of course). But, if you are happy with the limitations of 32-bit or need the extra compatibility, then it's your issue.

64-bit era has come.
 
While I agree that 64Bit OS has advantages, I still don't see it as being very mainstream, compared to 32Bit.

Even with the advantage of addressing more than 3.2GB of RAM, most users have not adopted to 64Bit. Even gamers are still running mostly 32Bit OS, and not 64Bit OS.

Until a majority of users have switched to 64Bit, you cannot dismiss 32Bit scores, simply because of it's memory limitations. You can even look at the Steam hardware survey, and see that 91% of users are still using 32Bit Windows OS (XP and Vista combined).
Steam Survey

So, while I agree, that using 64Bit is the future, it's not mainstream, and should not be used to dismiss or write off test results.
 
well Ive had a 6350 for some time now, and been hankering after a quad, but although the price looks good, i don't think its worth a change in motherboard and the expense that entails
 


Either this guy is on serious drugs or has a very dry sense of humor. :pt1cable:

Thankfully the majority of sensible posters using this forum agree about FANBOYS sucking :kaola:
 
First, I was going to comment on his statement that a Q6600 was 20-30% faster than a Phenom II. Then, I was going to ask where the PII heat issues were. But then he said, "i7... destroys last generations Core2Quads" and I realized he was an idiot. Now, I have a headache looking at his grammar while re-reading his post.

I, for one, am happy about the early results we've seen from PII. Seems like AMD have a decent 45nm process, which is a lot more than I can say about their 65nm process. Better IPC, higher clocks, seem to need less power, respectable overclocking, Phenom II looks to be a step in the right direction.
 


Quad-core is also not mainstream. It's about as mainstream as a Mac Pro (which isn't even 'upper-mainstream' at all). Most users haven't adopted dual-core yet, let alone quads, multi-gpu and the discussed 64-bit mode.

Perhaps I went a little too far as to call the 32-bit results 'meaningless', while 'much less meaningful than 64-bit ones in this discussion' would be far more adequate.

32-bit results really shouldn't be dismissed, but they must be given very little focus while testing products like the ones we are talking about.

But the point is that we are not talking about mainstream CPUs here. Phenom is not mainstream, just as Q6600 isn't. Athlons X2, Pentiums D, Pentiums Dual Core and some Core 2 models are mainstream CPUs.

People can buy an X2/Pentium D/Dual/Core 2 + motherboard + RAM combo for the price of a Q6600 or that of most Phenoms. Gamers are mainly using dual-cores, if you take into consideration even the Steam Survey, but the most appropriate thing to do would be to take a look at the complete configuration of quad-core users.

Once you buy one of those it ceases to be about 'mainstream' and starts to be about 'enthusiastic choices'. People don't have 4 cores to couple them with an HD Radeon 3650 or 2 GBs of RAM (at least not in most cases [and I'm aware you're one of them]).

Most reviews you can find nowadays are about quad-core CPUs - and none of them is part of the true mainstream segment.

Perhaps in 2009 they'll truly reach the majority of users, but that's still far from happening. Online surveys about PC Gamers' hardware tell little to nothing about what is inside a Joe's PC case.

So, if you are using quad-cores on reviews, pair it with the appropriate parts and settings. 4 GBs of RAM + Vista 64 is what most quad-cores systems are being sold/used with right now, so that's how a enthusiast hardware site should bench something.

We don't come at Tom's or go to Anand, TechReport, Xbitlabs, ExtremeTech, Bit-Tech, [H] and others to test 'mainstream' things (although some of these have real mainstream guides).

We go to those places and come to these forums to see and discuss [and flame] what's the best of the latest available tech (and what soon will be), apart from, sometimes, asking for some advices.

Benchmarks with a quad-core + 2 GBs of RAM + 32-bit OSes are like testing a 4870X2 or GTX280 with DirectX8 or 9. That's not what they are intended for. It's like pairing a Core i7 with a GTX280 3-way SLI and go test Quake 1 at 640x480.
 
Agreed.

I am not saying that 64Bit OS will not give a few percentages or so improvement, compared to using a 32Bit OS. Like you, I would rather see comparable benchmarks, as close as possible (same OS, amount of RAM, GPU, etc).

I am looking at the 32Bit Cinebench result from the "drop-in" AM2+ mobo users view, since most will do a drop-in upgrade, without fresh OS install.
 
Time to move on. XP 32bit is inferior. Not only were Vista issues blown out of proportion, but stuff that was bothersome early on has been way past "fixed" now. Ive been using Vista since it launched and ive never had an issue with lots of different hardware.
 

Same here. Haven't had any issues with Vista Ult., except for 64Bit not working with some apps I was using for my HTPC.
My main system is still using XP Pro, only because I really haven't upgraded to Vista on that system.

The problems were a bit exaggerated, but the same thing happened when XP was introduced.

 
By the way, Dante, will you be getting a free Nehalem anytime soon?

I've found a mATX X58 soon to be released board from DFI. I LOL'ed.

But I'll seriously consider it in early 2009 if Phenom II flops.

Also, I would like to ask what has been your experience with ASRock.
 

No Nehalem for me anytime soon, unfortunately. And right now, I really don't need it for anything that I run, including encoding, since the entry price (for mobo and DDR3 memory) is still a tad (or several tads) too much for my budget. I'm happy with my QX9650 and Q9450 systems. I won't say "no" if offered a Core i7 CPU, mind you. LOL.

I haven't had any issues using ASRock boards. This is my 2nd board from ASRock. I replaced my 630i based ASRock board with this one, only because the 630i chipset pretty much sucked. For my needs, ASRock gave me the slots and features I needed, without being overpriced.
 
^+1

Heck ya. The onboard HDMI was nice for my HTPC, but the GPU could not handle Vista's Aero, let alone Blu-ray. So, I yanked it out and replaced it with a cheap P43 board, and it has been rock solid since. I was looking at trying a G45 board, but the cost and form factor (I didn't want a micro-ATX) board prevented me from using a G45 board.

 
I had a first release and second revision EVGA 680i SLi. Both of them were the worse pieces of hardware I have ever owned. The first board had 3 dead RAM slots, RMAd. the second board had working RAM slots, but wouldnt overclock on 3 different BIOS' without putting the voltage to absurd mindblowing levels.

And I was just looking at G45 boards for a build for a work buddy, no thanks. Not paying $110 for a mATX board with questionable features.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom