AMD Phenom II X4: 45nm Benchmarked

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with you and others.

- AM2/AM2+ should not be compared to i7 with it's DDR3 capability.

- since most people aren't gonna dish out $3500+ for a system (and even if they are), they want the most bang for the buck.


Hopefully, AMD and the new AM3 architecture and the 45nm process will allow with good air cooling to take the AM3 PhenomII OCed to over 3.4GHz. If so, it's gonna be a pretty good day for AMD to be only one processor steps behind Intel than three.

And...I like AMD's cheaper prices. I can suffer a little for saving $100 on a processor. :)

[citation][nom]nsimo86[/nom]Just a few points I'd like to make:1. the am2+ phenom 2's have no business being compared to i7's. when am3 phenom 2's are out with DDR3 then lets start the comparison.2. who cares if the q6600 is two years old, it still costs nearly $200. Very few people will ever own top of the line cpu's so the midrange battle is more relevant.3. a yorkfield should beat the phenom II as it costs more. price per performance is the only thing that matters, forget about what generation the chip is or when it was released.4. this is pure speculation but it seems like most current applications benefit much more from L2 cache than L3 and this is what puts the phenom 2 and even the i7 at a disadvantage in many apps, most notably in games. of course raw clock speed can make up for this but overclockability is on the side of intel and is keeping amd in second place.5. in all reality, the am2+ phenom 2 should only be considered as an upgrade for people like me running an althon x2 or phenom 1.[/citation]
 
All you people stop pushing for q9xxx comparison already. There is a very good reason Toms choose not to do that. Think about it, the top of the line 3.0ghz black edition Phenom II managed to outperform a 2 years old stock 2.4ghz q6600 by only 10% avg. What does that say about work done per cycle? A q9xxx with stock clock higher than 2.4ghz will almost certainly overshoot the 10%. With both Intel comparisons higher performing than even the best Phenom II, the chip will look like trash.

They want one Intel chip to be faster, and another to be slower. Only the oldest quad in existence, running at stock (q6600@2.4ghz) can satisfy the condition of being slower than the best Phenom II.

There is also a good reason Toms didn't include oc test. Consider the low amount of work done per cycle of Phenom architecture (45nm die shrink, same architecture), and oc capacity of q6600, it would make the chip look like trash.
 
AMD did a good job with this platform. it came at the right time now we all have to watch the money somewath because of the weaker global economy yet we want to give our selfs fast computers and amd got its self a winner to get competition for the penryn.I have builded a quite some systems on the sites im going to order the parts from and i came to the conclusion the dragon platform isn't that much slower then core I7 but still it is way more affordable for the same price you would only have a very bare and empty case with one DVD drive and the cheapest ddr3 ram that would work with core I7 and perhaps a 4830 or 4850 that fits the buget, you can now finaly have a complete system with everything on it with 22 inch samsung display and everything to be made of high-end parts for that same price. sure preformance matters for me but the mere 20% increase dous not justify the extra cost for my pocket. i rather go for this solution because i will have a complete system full of high-end parts and enough tweaking head-room to get me going a couple of years.

hopefully the 40nm radeon's aren't to far away from now. Sure i can wait the few months extra. it will only help me to fill up the jar with money i have saved for it. and more money means better parts :)

sure i might sound like a fanboy or something but i dont care i have been waiting for something faster then phenom and yet still being afforable. But i can tell you that i would go for the core I7 if it was worth it in my buget. but now it might be better to go for a 920 or 940 4-8GB ram and a 4870 or 4850x2 on a GX board. But i might wait until rv870 will make its approach. it would save some on powerconsumption. and that is also a thing what i like about amd overdrive. that i will be able to tweak power shemes. the V core might be able to get a bit lower for 800mhz idle modus, since my system will need to run for days and i dont want a big power bill. may the electric company hate me 😛
 
I disagree that the only thing that matters is price/performance. Total investment matters also. Not everyone can drop $2000 or more into a computer each year, so having a low total cost while maintaining a decent price/performance is key.

Also, even if AMD is behind the times compared to Intel, by advancing their product line to keep competitive is good for consumers. Some people seem to think AMD should go back to manufacturing K6s and let Intel set the price to whatever they want.

I agree entirely with the sentiment that who cares if a CPU is 2 or 3 years old - if that chip is still selling well in the same price range then the comparison is valid.

As for me, I think I'd just buy the Phenom II to upgrade my system rather than spend the money on a Q6600 and new motherboard (which would cost me more out of pocket for the same performance) - and better yet, I can bump down the CPUs so that all my systems will get a speed boost.
 
It's very strange that AMD put uncore clock of Phenom II at 1.8GHz. If the chip is running at 2.2 to 2.4GHz, that's understandable. With core speed up to 2.8 and 3.0GHz, uncore clock should be at least 2GHz, or even 2.2GHz, in order to push clock utilization.
 
[citation][nom]MDillenbeck[/nom]I disagree that the only thing that matters is price/performance. Total investment matters also. Not everyone can drop $2000 or more into a computer each year, so having a low total cost while maintaining a decent price/performance is key.Also, even if AMD is behind the times compared to Intel, by advancing their product line to keep competitive is good for consumers. Some people seem to think AMD should go back to manufacturing K6s and let Intel set the price to whatever they want.I agree entirely with the sentiment that who cares if a CPU is 2 or 3 years old - if that chip is still selling well in the same price range then the comparison is valid.As for me, I think I'd just buy the Phenom II to upgrade my system rather than spend the money on a Q6600 and new motherboard (which would cost me more out of pocket for the same performance) - and better yet, I can bump down the CPUs so that all my systems will get a speed boost.[/citation]

P43/45 motherboards are cheap though, below $100. That makes a $180 q6600 plus motherboard cheaper than the $280 Phenom II cpu alone. AMD will have to drop price if Phenom II is to be competitive.
 
This is a step in the right direction, I am looking to build a complete new system in the next couple of months. It is the AM3 boards that now need to come out before I make my choice. If the performance improvement is as good as that of cpu then I may take AMD over intel.
 
[citation][nom]Chaohsiangchen[/nom]It's very strange that AMD put uncore clock of Phenom II at 1.8GHz. If the chip is running at 2.2 to 2.4GHz, that's understandable. With core speed up to 2.8 and 3.0GHz, uncore clock should be at least 2GHz, or even 2.2GHz, in order to push clock utilization.[/citation]


That is left for the AM3 platform.
 
[citation][nom]firedogevan[/nom]why focus on the q6600... wouldn't the q9550 or 9650 be a more accurate comparison given their respective locations in the product lineup?[/citation]

I think that also quoting the Q6600 is a great idea. IT's the most common quad core out there, so it'll give you a real world comparison vs what most people have!
 
The Core i7 writeup, as I recall, resorted to benchmarking overclocked i7 vs. stock Core2 and Phenom so that i7 could sweep the benchmarks, rather than lose to Core2 in everything but synthetics and video encoding. Did Core i7 get faster? If not, then something is very wrong with these benchmarks, and if AMD can OC a few hundred mhz better, then by golly, AMD has taken back the performance crown.
 
wow i think i have a problem. i saw the phenom II 940 on newegg and ordered it right then and there, it was practically involuntary 😛 but luckily i didn't need a new mobo or ram. thanks AMD! by the time i recieve it, hopefully u guys will have an article about its OCing ability. perhaps after buying a 58xx series gpu, i might even be able to fight off the upgrade bug for a few years
 
I have one problem with the idea that has been proposed that you do not have to upgrade AMD hardware all at once, and instead can just upgrade in increments. That problem is socket LGA775.

When it debuted, you could put LGA775 P4 on it. But then, intel put the original C2D (remember the X6800?) on it, then the newer 65nm C2D in the form of the E6750 (an upgrade from the E6700), and then the first 45nm chips. My point is that LGA775 stuck around for nearly 4 years. During that four years, DD2 went from an extremely pricy luxury to dirt cheap, DVD drives still played DVD's and a new PCIe bus came out but with the exception of really high end GPU's you were still good loading in nearly any GPU in the PCIe port that you purchased in late 05 or early 06.

With Socket 1366, I can see Intel doing the same. They'll next release a die shrink, to 32nm, and it will be fitting the LGA1366 socket. Inbetween now and then we will probably see some new Core i7 processors and the introduction of true 8 core processors, which 45nm and the size of Socket 1366 can support. So before we even get the die shrink that will be using the same socket, there will be new performance goodies.

My point is that between now and the three years or so when Socket 1366 becomes obsolete, would it have been more expensive to continuously plow more and more money into the system, with all those new processors and motherboards, or just stick to the original processor and motherboard and just upgrade RAM and GPU's? If you are an AMD customer, you don't have to buy new processors and motherboards, but as some have stated you can and probably will just to have the latest performance.

If you buy a Socket 1366 motherboard, there will still be new processors and hardware to load on it. Right now, I actually think its probably the cheapest route to go for the people looking to upgrade hardware, because you already have DDR3 support when if you go Phenom II, you have to use AM2+ and DDR2 memory. Of course you could upgrade both of those later, but then thats just more money sunk into the system and two obsolete parts potentially sitting in a bin.

My point is that either way, AMD or Intel, you can continuously sink money into the system, and its going to be emptying your pocket while you do it. If you get on today's best tech though, with some overclocking potential and good RAM, then all you need to do is upgrade the video cards as you go. So the dollars and sense arguement might still be in Intel's favor.

The only way AMD can take that away is to release an AM4 soon (1 year or so) after AM3. That means that while Intel has to make do with what it loaded into LGA1366 for some time or risk its base having to buy eveything again, AMD can indeed begin offering truely better performance. But thats only for those who would sink money, time and time again, into the system.
 
BTW the Q6600 is still a good processor for its price, if only for the overclocking crowd. Running one at 3.4 gigahertz on air (extremely pricey air that I'm going to have to fiddle with to get in on Socket 1366 or change something to get it on AM3, but its still 3.4 gigahertz).
 
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]I wonder how it would compare to an i7 with only dual channel DDR3-1066 and no HT - see how the cores compare.[/citation]

I have to agree...

In the conclusion:

"Intel configuration requires a high-end motherboard and triple-channel DDR3 memory."

It doesnt require triple channel at all, i7 will work off single or dual also. Once more from benchmarks i've seen the difference between dual and triple in real world is minimal. Something like this RAM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231190 at $70 less would...

1. Narrow the price difference gap (that apparently is the Phenom II's greatest plus.
2. Negate the extra 2gb ram that the i7 has to play with in the benchmarks making them closer to true.
3. Negates the extra power that the 3rd stick draws making the i7 slightly more power efficient.

Unless you already own an AM2 board thats compatible with Phenom II or your a diehard AMD fanboi i dont think its going to take many sales off Intels Q9xxx or someone looking for more performance the i7's.

Unfortunately, it seems AMD is one release behind intel and still got some catching up to do... COME ON AMD, im rooting for you.
 
One question I guess I have is: the points made in the conclusion about the i7 systems needing high end motherboards and DDR3 men where as the PII does not, What would the Phenom do/how would it performe if the the foundation system were equal. Apples to apples?
 
Well after seeing the number's i'm only slightly enthused and a little disappointed at the same time. It seems either Ph2's are not really a big performance improvement from a Ph1 or that most programs have over the last few years have been optimized for Intel's cpu style. Either way Most of these tests would seem to indicate that even a mid level intel cpu is better than AMD's cpu's. I've been trying to decide on an upgrade and will be building a system soon rather than upgrading so i'll probably wait for the AM3 socket to come out since I still have an AM2 board and skip AM2+ for now.
 
Based on your conclusion it sounds as if Phenom II was designed around the server space. The lower power envelope and cheaper complete system entry make it a more viable upgrade for business workstations as well. I think AMD keeps trying to grab more server market shares from the boys in blue. If so, AMD certainly knows what they're doing. Business sales is where the big money is and they know it. Home gaming PCs are NOT where the big dollar amounts are. AMD keeps hitting the mainstream/big market segments left and right and they should. They don't care if they lead in performance right now, they just want to lead in price/performance and in energy efficiency. Bravo AMD. Good work.
 
Amendment to my above post. I wanted to say too that even if the Phenom II can't compete price/performance wise against tri-channel DDR3 when put on a similar platform, these processors do have the advantage of being socket backwards-compatible, which regardless of cost DOES make any current businesses using AM2 think twice about switching to Intel. At least they have something comparable now.
 
I went on newegg, configured a system.

It was about $1295 (plus $70 in MiR) for the following:

AMD Phenom II 940
8GB DDR2-800 memory
Asus 790GX motherboard
Sapphire 4870x2 (2GB GDDR5) video card
1.5TB hard drive
Antec 900 case
CORSAIR 750W PSU
LG 22x CD/DVD burner

For a system that would come out to about $1265 shipped after mail-in rebated, that's a whole lot of computer for a gamer on a tight budget. Not every gamer can afford an Intel Core i7 system with a 4870x2, but the above system with the AMD Phenom II makes it much more possible.
 
LOL i actually just re-read the specs and minor details, heres one for the AMD croud who likes thinking comparing a 65nm AMD to a 45nm Intel etc (going back generations etc) - Intel Q6600 (2.4ghz/65nm) vs Phenom 940 (3ghz/45nm) - oh my, whats this? 600mhz less and pretty much equal or around the mark performance wise, with Intel using an older manafacturing process?? Ouch!

Us Q6600 owners have had Phenom II 940's "performance" or better (overclocked since day one) for nearly two years! With higher grade chipsets to match (nvidia? no thankyou).

Step in the right direction for AMD yes, competitive? perhaps a year or more ago yes, performance crown? Hell no.
 
I dont get it ... its only faster by 10% compared to a 2.4ghz quad....clock for clock it is still slower...
 
VERY disappointed there was no head-to-head with an Intel i7 @ 3.0G -- I suspect it would be about 30% slower (given it is 22% slower on avg to a i7 920 @ 2.66)
 
I too like Barnsey would like to see Microsoft Flight Simulator X (FSX) used as a benchmark on this CPU (Phenom II) and others especially since it's used by a lot of people and it is one of the few multi-core optimized applications out there.Please Tom's Hardware include FSX as a benchmark for CPU's more often.
 
i'm sure the price war will begin once AMD launch there AM3 platform with ddr3, another increase in preformance atleast 5% it should be. then intel might lower the price of Core I7. preformance wise core I7 is king but production cost and marketing wise core I7 isn't doing so well for intel right now. it actualy forces them to sell there core 2 serie cheaper because the demand is drawing away. but im sure it will do better once core 2 will be replaced by core I5. it might just be that intel needs to get rid of there remaining core 2 cpu's until 3th quarter until then AMD will have a good position in the mainstream and middlehigh-end market.i like to see how things evolve.im sure AMD makes a good move to launch the LEO platform by that time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom