AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Review

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.
[citation][nom]sjwpwrpro[/nom]Correct me if im wrong, but I thought that the i5 and i3 were also going to be missing the QPI.[/citation]

They are, but the reason to miss QPI--PCI Express connectivity--is built into the die itself. Thus, losing QPI on i5 won't inherently hurt performance.
 
phenom II was all great and snazzy (i love my 720 to death) but really, AMD needs to get back on their feet and stop paying attention to the past high performance parts from intel. i wanna see something from AMD that can actually challenge an I7 and not have to be overclocked to freakin 3.8ghz to show it
 
I only have 1 doubt... Why running the test suit with power savings on?

If I recall correctly, AMD had a little problem with CnQ and OC'ing (in fact, it was recomended to turn it off completly when OC'ing from forums); that would explain the poor performance you guys *might* achieved in the tests suits. Hope I recall it wrong though, and if not, they fixed it at some point.

Nice article and overall good asumptions for a preview, GJ Tom's 8)

Cheers!
 
Thanks for the feedback Yuka! If you're overclocking with CnQ dynamically adjusting voltage, then yes, there will be an issue, as the CPU tries to hit the clock rate requested while throttling down V. For the overclock testing, voltage was manually keyed in through the BIOS to keep this from happening (if you do it through the Overdrive software, you'll run into trouble).
 
I agree with the last paragraph in the article about Intel's Core i5.
AMD's CPU situation is going to look bleak when Intel's Core I5 comes out unless they come up with a miracle wild card.
 
In Europe..

the very minimum i920 system (ram, chip, board)3 gigs ram is 450 euros
the very minimum 955BE system with 4 gigs slower ram is 270 euros

The i920 is more futureproof, a tiny amount faster in some things, a lot faster in other things. But, for gamers, the difference is tiny, and many seem to be budgeting and going with AMD 955 for now.

Also I don't think its fair to directly compare the prices of the chips, because the i920 needs a minimum 160-ish euro motherboard, and expensive ram ontop of that.
 
[citation][nom]ravenware[/nom]Echo..Core 2 dup was released in 2006.While I agree that AMD was extremely competitive pre 2003, often releasing faster chips; the solid ass beating came after the release of Athlon 64.[/citation]

There were two major beatings that AMD gave to Intel. The first one was with the Athlon line, starting in 1999 and continuing to about 2002. The Athlons beat the PIIIs and P4 Willamette before being edged out by the P4 Northwood. Intel didn't stay in the lead very long as the Athlon 64 FX-51 famously beat the Northwood-based P4 "Emergency Edition." That beating didn't let up until the Core 2 debuted in 2006. Unfortunately it has been just as one-sided since then with Intel holding the lead.
 
Wow, what a disappointment. At 140W TDP, it looks like nothing more than a pre-overclocked 945. I would have been a lot more impressed if they could have done it with an 80W (or less) TDP, but this looks like wasted effort. I do not believe there is any question for which this chip is the best answer. Sorry, AMD; I want to hope, really I do, but you'll need to do better.
 
I'm sorry.. but am I the only one that thinks it is bogus for a tech site like this to "compare" a CPU out in the market against a CPU that is not even out yet? And then to call the CPU that is not even out yet the winner??

Poor form.

Really the only thing that I learned from this article and what I have been seeing in just about every article to come out lately, is this..

The best buy is the Phenom IIx3 720, hands down. It benched all of those games very well, and has been in all the latest articles...so much so that it almost makes spending anymore money on a CPU for a gaming computer unneeded. All of the numbers show very, very playable frame rates.. anything more is for bragging rights for benchmarks.

If I was going to build a gaming PC right now.. I think I would have to go with the $120 PIIx3 720 and spend the money saved on other areas such as PSU, GPU, RAM and MB.

 
wtf is the point of this article? I am not interested in hearsay and prediction nonsense. How about 965 vs Current competitors or things that actually exist.
 
screw both amd and intel, i'm putting a wicked awesome via chip in my next gaming rig. Via kicks the crap out of the both of them on ALL LEVELS. I mean, i seriously considered getting a cyrix chip, but then the new via hit the market and i jizzed in my pants...............
 
I really would love to see AMD be a bit more competitive with either pricing or performance. It would give a legitimate reason for people to consider AMD over Intel and drive some better competition between the two brands. Personally, it is a bit sad that AMDs best is on par with the Q9550 released over a year ago.
 
AMD start to become closer to Intel. Finally!
This taked so much time!!!

But at this point, AMD is still an OCkers solution.
AMD need to come with few new model who finally beat Intel i7.

One interresting point is checking "Power consumption".
i7 aren't optimal like Core2Duo.
It's probably the fatal flaw in the i7.
I read on Toms a laptop with i7, 12 cell get just 1hour battery...
 
There is no question that the AMD CPU's are being held back by something...i am almost sure they could run just as fast or faster than a Core i7/i5. I still think the mobos are hurting their performances somwhere along the lines. I could be wrong tho, but it looks like it to me...
 
for the price amd is amazing, i ordered a 955 and a new mobo today to replace my q2q. I dont want to see AMD go down the shitter, but they are headed that way if they dont come out with something new in the very near future. Maybe DX11 cards will help them out... too bad i just got a 4890. waste of money i should have waited.
 
Price is nice..Power consumption is ok. Performance per watt is decent, But not quiet as efficient as Intel. Amd had some wonderful chips back in the 939 days when Intel wanted to use Btx form factors for there massive heat/power issues. The fx, Opteron, and athlon 64/X2's where noticeably the best. I'm just using a Zotac Ion atom nettop while commenting (Like only 20 watts!?). Running a large lan party would be costly with these phenom 2's(Long term power consumption/heat/)24/7. Efficiency has gotten better, But not quiet there yet. Would be like a rehash of years past but with the shoe's on the other foot. I really want to save energy and the environment. pushing the clock speeds up is what intel did with prescott!? And isn't GPU performance becoming a bigger factor today? Can we say diminishing returns for this processor? (unless you are building a new system coming from something like a 939?) I'm gonna wait for the next generation to hopefully blow any skirts up.
 
When AMD first came out with the Athlon they had some of the engineers of the Alpha processor which was by far the best tech at the time. Does anyone know if AMD stll has these same people that were so brillent back then or did they leave? It's hard to believe those guys would get behind like this.
 
I wonder what would be the outcome if a PII had an 8 MB cache and not 6 MB , anyway i don`t understand why ppl would actualy wanted to see something different here it was obvious there were only 200 MHz improvement nothing else you could of figured out yourself how the charts of this CPU would look even without testing.
 
[citation][nom]ewood[/nom]for the price amd is amazing, i ordered a 955 and a new mobo today to replace my q2q. I dont want to see AMD go down the shitter, but they are headed that way if they dont come out with something new in the very near future....[/citation]
A PII 955 to replace which C2Q? PII and C2Q basically have the same performance per clock so you are essentially paying for something you already have.

I have a 3.0GHz@1.2v Q6600 and nothing on market is really that fast to compel me to upgrade.
 
Hm...better off spending $50ish more get a Intel i7 920, OC it to 3.6~3.8Ghz and dominate across the board. I'm sad to see that even the simulated 'nerfed' i7 beats the new AMD offering. 920 OC'd would be nigh untouchable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom