AMD Phenom II X4: 45nm 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
Status
Not open for further replies.
w[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]
nah its more like Phenom II 940 vs Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Phenom II 920 vs Q9300 as both the Q9300/Q9400 are 45nm and priced at same level

Phenom II 940 45nm @ $275.00
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103471
Core 2 Quad Q9400 45nm @ $269.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115131



 
If you saw in the user reviews for the PhenomII on NewEgg (I think it was the 940), evidently some guy reportedly got one from attending a pre-release event in Chicago and has it overclocked to 3.91GHz? That's pretty damned good.

Hopefully the AM3s are as good if not better at OCing. That will mean next year at Christmas, I'll be building me a new gaming rig 😀

Of course, I might go ATI cards then (dual 4870x2 1GBs). Even nvidia's 9800 GTX+s seem to have lagging issues when I run 8 clients of Shadowbane ....maybe I'm expecting too much??? lol

[citation][nom]deredita[/nom]I went on newegg, configured a system. It was about $1295 (plus $70 in MiR) for the following:AMD Phenom II 9408GB DDR2-800 memoryAsus 790GX motherboardSapphire 4870x2 (2GB GDDR5) video card1.5TB hard driveAntec 900 case CORSAIR 750W PSULG 22x CD/DVD burnerFor 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.[/citation]
 
Hmmm... Phenom II is actually better than I expected... This proves also that i7 is a great prosessor, but AMD is not actually doing bad at all. If I am not wrong, the ddr3 eats less power than dd2, so the energy effiency does go even further when AM3 comes out.
The Intel have even now a huge lead in prosessing technology, but as an CPU Phenom II is ok. It garantees to those who likes Intel chips reasonable prises allso in the near future, and reasonable performance to those who prefer AMD prosessors. Win win situation from my point of view! Of cource I hope that AMD can reduce the cap even more and move easily to those high-metal gate or what ever... technology that would allow even less electric leakage and be able to move smaller production technology, but that is something that can not be done without a lot of money! New technology is expensive, so that's why Intell is leading and why i7 is not so cheap at this moment.
Keep up AMD! We customers need your effort to keep Intel on their tiptoes 🙂
 
[citation][nom]kschoche[/nom]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...........[/citation]
AMD has shit implementation of MMX/SSEx so any vectorized code (be it a benchmark or video encoder) will run way faster on Intel. They need to do some serious work in this area since the renaissance of vector programming already began (Cell, Larabee to come etc.).
The fact that some SW uses a general technology which AMD can't implement properly doesn't mean it is optimised for Intel.
Or should we stop using SSEx altogether because it makes AMD look worse?
 
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]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.[/citation]

Phenom II's architecture is still the same, only with a die shrink. So work done per cycle is still the same.

AMD handled the 65nm -> 45nm die shrink better than Intel did. The q9300 and q8200 Yorkfields were far inferior to the q6600 Kentsfield they're supposed to replace. Phenom 2 is superior to Phenom. Even though Phenom 2's architecture is still technically inferior to the 2 years old q6600, AMD took a step in the right direction. You should give credit where it's due.
 
lets admit it...the phenom IIs were made for ppl like me that decided to buy an am2+ board but werent totally sold on a phenom yet...thank god i bought my beautiful x2 6000+...it has definitely served me well...
 
It's true that this T.H. comparison Q6600 versus PH II 940 makes no sense, they are not the same generation, clock, nm process, and price. Right comparison would be the Q6600/Penom 9850/9950...and PhenomII 940 versus Q9550...But stating that you can oc Q6600 and get it over new Phenom II is equally stupid 'cause - you can do it better with the new phenom, who reportedly have much headroom, and goes easy to 3,8-4,0 GHz air cooled.
But newertheless, competitive comparison would be the right priced intel Quad of same 45nm generation - Q8000/Q9000 range. I'm surprised that tom's hardware went on this curious benchmarks? Perhaps, reason for this is performance per watt, and need to show how economic and cool new phenoms are? With 45nm Penryns, especially brand new Q9400/9500s with 65W TDP, it would shorelly fail. But aside all this, for owners of decent AM2+ motherboard systems like myself, this Phenom is a must without much investment. I do have Penryns also, so no fanboysm here :)
 
Phenom 1 VS Phenom 2

Come on , lets see a clock for clock comparison ..
A P1 @ 3ghz VS the P2 @ 3ghz , Who dare's ? to really compare old to new at the same speed .
 
wow amd beat a 2 year old cpu thats 400-600mhz slower (depending on the cpu) i'd probably have to class that as a loss instead of a win.
 
The only next thing to do now is for AMD to release an enthusiast i7 killer processor and a new motherboard that won't bottleneck it.


 
You guys still can't get past the fact that Intel really took AMD to the woodshed a couple years ago. When someone buys the high end processor, the last thing they really care about is energy consumption...room lights and A/C make far more difference.

At least AMD is making a good showing and we all need this so Intel can't rest on its laurels.
 
Hmmm... why is THG comparing it with Q6600?? Its price is directly comparable to the iQ9xxx series and not the iQ6xxx...

Been an AMD fan for many years turned to the 8400 last year and since then nothing has changed to convince me to come back...
 
Oh, c'mon... Best buy?
This is a very good processor... For early 2008, not 2009! After this long finally ADM shows off with a new CPU which on the performance level is barely able to beat a 2 years old CPU from Intel... and you give it an award?
Ok, I agree that AMD's respect for backward compatibility is wonderful! I whish Intel was at least half as good as AMD on this point.
But the fact that this CPU is too slow (relatively speaking) for early 2009 remains. The only thing up-to-date is energy consumption, but I think Intel will put a remedy on this very quickly and, after all, as you yourself have shown the i7 is already better than the new Phenom and the chipset is the only part to fix.
On the whole, kudos to AMD for the retro compatibility and the energy saving, but shame for performance and NOT deserved award from tom's!
 
I would too label Phenom II the best buy award if this was 2 years ago. Phenom II will gather and buried in dust and be forgotten.
 
[citation][nom]reflex606[/nom]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!!![/citation]
Because i7 requires DDR3 Triple Channel, while the other systems require DDR2 Dual Channel. Your information, sir, is FALSE.

AMD hasn't quite caught up with intel, but I don't care. They offer near-i7 Performance at a cheaper price, and with better chipsets, flexibility, and upgrade options. All you rich brats keep complaining that AMD hasn't caught up with intel yet... when AMD is slowly taking back the mainstream market, where all the money is at.

Not everyone has $500 to blow on a freaking processor.
 
maybe it's true that the phenom platform uses less power,but could that partly be because of the chipset's inability to run the faster DDR3 memory?

Perhaps DDR3 saves power per clockspeed compared to DDR2,but the controller should consume more due to it's faster clockspeed.

Also performance difference of the Corei7 platform will probably reduce when the DDR2 memory could be overclocked to the same speed.
The 'lost' 22% could very well translate to only 18 or 15%; which price per performance could really favor the Phenom II
 
maybe it's true that the phenom platform uses less power,but could that partly be because of the chipset's inability to run the faster DDR3 memory?

Perhaps DDR3 saves power per clockspeed compared to DDR2,but the controller should consume more due to it's faster clockspeed.

Also performance difference of the Corei7 platform will probably reduce when the DDR2 memory could be overclocked to the same speed.
The 'lost' 22% could very well translate to only 18 or 15%; which price per performance could really favor the Phenom II
 
some people on the blog don't seem to get at all that lower powerconsumption means less money.
A system that is used 8 hours a day that uses 100W more than another system similar to identical in performance, essentially costs you about $20 to $30 more on the electric bill per month...
 
I for one suspect that intel will drop their chips prices because of this new AMD product. In addition I am pretty sure they werent expecting AMD to come up with an offering that gets as close to their lead chip as it did. Lets just wait and see what intel comes up with next.

This is going to be good :)

 
[citation][nom]reflex606[/nom]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!!![/citation]

Where did you get $95? 6gb is $144.99 and 3gb is $84.99. So you're still talking $635 which is still nearly $200 more and 1gb less.

I have to laugh at people on here that condemn AMD like this is a political race with the childish "in your face" attitude. My main system is a Q9450 but I think it's great the AMD is finally starting to show signs of life again. It helps everyone. Others here seem to focus in too much on things, like the gameboy comment or saying "I can OC my q6600 to 3.6"... You can have the fastest but who cares? You get to brag a little more to others who, in general, probably could care less? It increases your poor ability in some games slightly? In the grand scheme of things it's what works best for any individual on their budget and existing set up.

With that said, I can see how the Q9550 was missed in the price comparisons but I understand why they chose the Q6600 for the entry point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom