AMD Phenom II X4: 45nm Benchmarked

Page 2 - 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.
The real winner here is the Agena 9350 for those with green concerns.
 
[citation][nom]jj463rd[/nom]On the forums someone mentioned "why did they use DDR2-800 RAM when DDR2-1066 would give better performance for the Phenom II".Wouldn't this skew the benchmarks by a little bit (perhaps 2 to 3%)?[/citation]

Hav ta agree with ya, then add the fact it wasn't tested on a 790/750SB(isn't that supposed to be the Dragon?). Kinda makes you wonder why they tested Intels on a top-o-the-line platform and took a step backwards on the AMD platform.

SKEWED agian, on another review.
 
The Q9550 will probably come down in price to meet that 275 price point or get a tad closer...at that point AMD has no hope for competing with any ratio other than suck/dollar
 
"Consider also that an idle system with a Core 2 Quad 6600 requires 3 more watts than a Phenom II system."

I think you mean "3 more watts than a phenom" - the phenom II uses almost 20 watts less
 
I was just wanting to see on a clock per clock basis how it stacked up and against a Q6600 OCed to 3GHz in gaming the Phenom 940 was behind by about 6%. You can check the results but thats what I got. Based it off of the QX6850 which is just like a Q6600 @ 3GHz.

Anyways. The CPU looks decent and maybe OCing will be better this time around.
 
I have been saying this for the last three months; Phenom II isn't going to beat Yorkfield or Bloomfield. I can't believe how many fanboys expecting Phenom II to beat Bloomfield.

There you have it, the entire compatible AM2 / AM2+ platform couldn't beat what Intel released 2 years ago. If you bought into AMD’s upgrade scheme, Phenom II could be your third AM2 chip and finally give you the performance Intel could gave you two years ago.
 
"Performance Analysis: Phenom X4 9950 BE 13.8% Slower"

How is it 13.8% slower when on average u say the 940 is 16.3% faster?
 
Please give an honest conclusion. The Phenom II is an incremental improvement. It's a 45nm chip that beats a 2 year old Q6600 (65nm). Trying to recommend it over an i7 is ludicrous; you're recommending DDR2 RAM and a AM2+ motherboard, both are obsolete.

If DDR3 and AM3 somehow give the Phenom II a 10% boost in performance then MAYBE you can honestly recommend it, but then again that will raise the price point won't it.

There is only 1 reason to buy AMD, and that's to keep Intel awake.
 
who cares about a secount best?? realy if i wanted something powerfull i would go for the fastest not the cheapest..

if i wanted some cheap entrataintment i would go for a gameboy
 
It seems that Sandra is VERY poorly optimized for the phenom architecture in general??? I find it VERY hard to believe that any one cpu now or ever has a 400% lead in a useful benchmark over its competitor that doesnt have compiler tweaks or cpuid checks...........
 
Phenom II - A great upgrade for existing AM2+ users and gives enthusiasts something else to consider when building a mid priced PC. Intel will have to work hard to win over AMD's user base.

However what I would say the review has missed out on some points when comparing AMD and Intel products. Firstly here in the UK the Phenom II 940 is the same price as the Core i7 920, as for motherboards X58 are coming down in price and be picked for aorun £160 which is comparable to SLI AM2 chipsets but you don't get the flexibility of having Crossfire and SLI on the same board as you do with the X58 something that wasn't mentioned in the review.

Also price wise the Phenom II 920 isn't comparable to the Q6600 so I don't understand why you are setting the 920 against the Q6600 it doesn't make much sense.
 
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]OMG! AMD Caught Up with MY almost 2 year old Q6600! Wow the 6 series feels old now..... Thank god i got it clocked to 3.5ghz LOL!Now all AMD has to do is release a Phenom III to take on Intels Q9xxx series and then a Phentium IV for the i7 Wont MalcolmK be happy about his upgrade path hahaHigh five PCfreak15, dont worry about that negative vote LOL[/citation]

Well Mr. Troll I would argue that my AM2 6000+ is still competetive and that is older than the core2 so your agrument is invalid.
 
Rather disappointing results. It's a 3.0ghz top of the rank black edition Phenom II barely winning against a 2 years old 2.4ghz q6600, the first quad core in existence, which now cost half the price as the Phenom II BE. Few individual builders run q6600 at stock, so what would happen when it's ran at a more typical 3.6ghz?
 
[citation][nom]V3NOM[/nom]who cares about performance/watt? PRICE/PERFORMANCE is the big deal[/citation]
V3NOM: performance per watt is important to get quads in a laptop.
 
[citation][nom]dagger[/nom]Rather disappointing results. It's a 3.0ghz top of the rank black edition Phenom II barely winning against a 2 years old 2.4ghz q6600, the first quad core in existence, which now cost half the price as the Phenom II BE. Few individual builders run q6600 at stock, so what would happen when it's ran at a more typical 3.6ghz?[/citation]

Ahhh 3.6 is not typical with a Q6600. Try 3.0 to 3.2. You need adequate cooling a voltage increase and usually a GO stepping processor and even then a 3.6 is not the norm. Go read some reviews before talking out of your A$$.
 
why would you bother running the i7 core with 6 GB($144) of RAM?? look at the prices, the other systems are running 4 GB($49), so the prices part of this article ARE FALSE!!!! take $95 off the i7 price and that would be more accurate!!!
 
the conclusion is a bit rushed.
Click to expand...
No kidding. Recommended Buy? Bert is still drinking the AMD Kool-Aide. The conclusion is based upon a comparison to a 26-month old processor? Yes, if you would like to live in 2006 again, go out and buy this processor. Most energy efficient system? Aren't we comparing processors? Penryn Quad-Cores also come in at this price range. Heard of Q8200, Q8300, Q9400 ?? Where are they on this chart? They are also more power efficient than a 65nm Q6600.

More than that, a Core i7 system gets the work done in 1/3 the time... So while Phenom is still cranking along at 100% load, the Core i7 is sitting at idle. Which is more power efficient? I think this guy needs to get out of his office once and a while.
 
[citation][nom]caamsa[/nom]Ahhh 3.6 is not typical with a Q6600. Try 3.0 to 3.2. You need adequate cooling a voltage increase and usually a GO stepping processor and even then a 3.6 is not the norm. Go read some reviews before talking out of your A$$.[/citation]

3.6 can be reached even on a poorly binned Q6600. I have no idea where you are drawing your conclusions from. Anybody who overclocks without a decent cooling solution doesn't have all the marbles intact in the first place. 3.8 to 4 requires some hunting or advanced cooling in most cases.
 
Established:
I7 > Phenom II > Core 2

It's not like AMD took the crown, but it's no longer behind the Core 2 series.
Click to expand...

Phenom II > Core 2? Go back and look at the charts Kool-Aide Man. Phenom II > Q6600... For 90% of the benchmarks, Core 2 > Phenom II.. Q6700 on up.
 
[citation][nom]BSMonitor[/nom]No kidding. Recommended Buy? Bert is still drinking the AMD Kool-Aide. The conclusion is based upon a comparison to a 26-month old processor? Yes, if you would like to live in 2006 again, go out and buy this processor. Most energy efficient system? Aren't we comparing processors? Penryn Quad-Cores also come in at this price range. Heard of Q8200, Q8300, Q9400 ?? Where are they on this chart? They are also more power efficient than a 65nm Q6600.More than that, a Core i7 system gets the work done in 1/3 the time... So while Phenom is still cranking along at 100% load, the Core i7 is sitting at idle. Which is more power efficient? I think this guy needs to get out of his office once and a while.[/citation]

Go read this reveiw if you want to see those procesors included.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492

They also do some over clocking as well.








 
[citation][nom]roofus[/nom]3.6 can be reached even on a poorly binned Q6600. I have no idea where you are drawing your conclusions from. Anybody who overclocks without a decent cooling solution doesn't have all the marbles intact in the first place. 3.8 to 4 requires some hunting or advanced cooling in most cases.[/citation]


What I said was that 3.0 to 3.2 is typical. Anything above that is not typical you need extra voltage, better cooling and luck. A lot of people will say that 3.8 or above is typical....when I am saying that is the exception and not the rule. I got my information from sites that have OC the GO stepping cpu.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1159/8/overclocking_the_g0_slacr_q6600_to_4ghz/index.html

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3066&p=3


 
[citation][nom]one-shot[/nom]Great review. Maybe some overclocking later? There were some pretty high claims about its overclocking potential. I'll wait for AM3 before I retire my E6750.[/citation]
Why? Drop in a Q9550 and you can reuse your motherboard and RAM for another two years. That is what I am going to be with my E6400.

[citation][nom]breakz[/nom]"Performance Analysis: Phenom X4 9950 BE 13.8% Slower"How is it 13.8% slower when on average u say the 940 is 16.3% faster?[/citation]
10% faster than 100 = 110; 10% slower than 110 = 99. I wouldn’t say this is elementary math but by high school, you should be able to grasp the concept.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom