I'd love to see how far this can easily be overclocked. The benchmarks above, I am taking with a grain of salt, although, I can't see why these wouldn't be dead on, they look fairly logical with other benchmarks - for the most part.
I guess next Monday (20th), we will see 20+ benchmarks on just about every single tech site on the web.
The numbers look good, but this X4 955 should have been out a long time ago. AMD pushing AM3 before their damn flagship chip for the platform even launched was...stupid. Its like a half-hearted purchase for a half-hearted platform.
Interesting that it has the highest game performance rating. I take it they were running a single-card rig? I wonder how badly it was bottlenecked.
Now I want so OC benchmarks and more comparisons, like with highly overclocked e8x00s and q9XX0s.
If it was a single card setup then every CPU in that test was bottlenecked a lot. Well at least we know the Core i7 is. Or did they do a test with Phenom II?
Anywho, the game performance is only for those who want to see their power bill be lower. Which is some. I really don't care. My bill is normally high due to heating costs in the winter and cooling in the summer.
Not a bad CPU but they do need to run a OCing test on it and see how far it goes compared to the X4 940 and the new Core i7 920 D0 stepping.
AMD's HyperTransport that is over 6 years now is ftw
it even beats Intels Brandnew QPI that is only less than half year old..
btw, AMD can easly beat intel i7 if they have had faster transition of manufacuring process
intel has been 1 year ahead of amd when it comes to manufacuring process
65nm > 45nm
it shows that if amd have had 45nm last year, amd would been on top of intel highest end
Phenom II is basicly a phenom with some tweaks, more cache and higher clocks
it shows that AMD CAN make great CPUs, even when intel has its cash up big OEMs asses ;P
Actually HTT is not truly 6 years old. The idea is, yes but the one they are using now is only about 2 years old max. And in most tests it shows that Intel QPI is about 2x faster when it comes to memory access and the such. HTT3.0 may change that but its not out yet.
This may be true but we shall never know.
AMD would also be able to do faster transitions if they had used cash to fund their R&D but instead they bought ATI costing them over 4 Billion dollars and turns out ATI was not worth even that much.
IF AMD had 45nm I doubt they would be on the top end. I can say they would have actually given Intel a run for their money but it would have been a fight to see. As for beating Core i7, not really. Mainly because AMDs 45nm would have probably been Phenom II and it would have probably been the same performer.
Even if Intel had their cash up OEMs butts it shouldn't have stopped them from making a good CPU. Phenom was a pretty big flop. They had no one to blame but themselves. Something went wrong with it much like whatever went wrong with Intels Prescott based P4s.
In the end, the 955 is pretty good but not amazing. At least until we see the OCing results. For now its meh.
First of all, they benched ONE game. Secondly, the average FPS for high-resolution was a difference of only .6 frames between the fastest AMD and the slowest i7...a win? Nope, not even close. This could have been due to a simple platform limitation. Hell, even switching out to a different motherboard could have brought a difference of 5 frames. It's interesting that the i7 virtually creams the Phenom II in every benchmark except for the high-res gaming (one game, .6 frames difference), lowest FPS on high-res - a max difference of 5 frames between the fastest AMD and slowest i7, one encryption bench, and power ratings.
AMD seems to be gearing this as a gaming chip, while Intel has geared the i7 as an all-around good chip for gaming and applications. I still think i7 wins this one
Glad to see AMD back in the game. On paper the Phenom was supposed to be superior to Core but just wasn't in the real world. Looks like AMD is working out the bottlenecks. I'll be glad to see multiple benchmarks in situations where neither cpu is bottlenecked when it's launched. I think both companies are doing a great job of innovating so good luck to both sides, the consumer wins either way.
No complaints here. Looks good. Its not meh, and no ifs or ands, the 9650 could easily be called meh as well. Im thinking this isnt the fastest one we will see either. But, so far so good. I hear they oc a tad better than the 940s, so maybe a good amount of 4Ghz ocees will be seen with this one, on air. What Im wondering is, if its available, will AMD go halfnode at 28nm? Thatd be wild
So, at the most commonly used res, 16x10, a 295 is bottlenecking a i7?. Im thinking an even faster cpu, or oceeing that i7 would give higher fps. If a cpu gives higher fps, especially the lowest ones, when oceed, its cpu limited then.
CPUs are slowly losing this battle. It used to be, they could handle any card, any game at 12x10, but thats no longer the case. Now we have to move up in resolution for cpus, or gpus rather, to run out of steam, and see the gpu as the slow down.
As each generation of gpu comes out, this gap widens. Im hoping game devs and things like Havok for physics, and DX11 along with W7 brings more to the cpu side of things, as itll eventually need it, as we are seeing now