- Status
doomsdaydave11
Distinguished
- Oct 16, 2007
- 935
- 0
- 18,980
Where's Crysis? That's still the benchmark game of the century. Can we play it on very high yet?
Anyway, I've always been a bit of an AMD fanboy, but I really don't like this starting high. I'm going to have to pass on this one if it's still around next year when I upgrade.
I'd rather get a very fast low-clocked processor (i.e. i7) where there's lots of overclocking room, and each extra tenth of a ghz that you squeeze out of it is big.
This USED to be the case with AMD's processors, anyway.
Anyway, I've always been a bit of an AMD fanboy, but I really don't like this starting high. I'm going to have to pass on this one if it's still around next year when I upgrade.
I'd rather get a very fast low-clocked processor (i.e. i7) where there's lots of overclocking room, and each extra tenth of a ghz that you squeeze out of it is big.
This USED to be the case with AMD's processors, anyway.
A few years ago AMD had the upper hand with architecture while Intel relied on gigahertz to stay competitive. It seems the tables have turned and I really hope AMD can become competitive with architecture again.
Shadow703793
Champion
- Feb 3, 2007
- 15,438
- 0
- 51,160
[citation][nom]Porsche73RS[/nom]A few years ago AMD had the upper hand with architecture while Intel relied on gigahertz to stay competitive. It seems the tables have turned and I really hope AMD can become competitive with architecture again.[/citation]
Just may be. Take a look at how power hungry those i7s are. If Intel doesn't do something i9s could be like 190W+ giving an advantage to AMD.
Just may be. Take a look at how power hungry those i7s are. If Intel doesn't do something i9s could be like 190W+ giving an advantage to AMD.
doomsdaydave11
Distinguished
- Oct 16, 2007
- 935
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]Korok[/nom]Would anyone buy this over the i7? Not seeing any reason why[/citation]
This chip in 1 month: $199
i7 920: $270
That would be why.
This chip in 1 month: $199
i7 920: $270
That would be why.
redgarl
Splendid
- Jun 4, 2009
- 2,889
- 200
- 21,440
[citation][nom]bildo123[/nom]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.[/citation]
The thing to think about, is you the cost of the memory and the motherboard. Not only that, but you need at least a 2X4870 or two 260GTX to clearly having a benefit with a core i7. Many peoples don't have that kind of money.
The thing to think about, is you the cost of the memory and the motherboard. Not only that, but you need at least a 2X4870 or two 260GTX to clearly having a benefit with a core i7. Many peoples don't have that kind of money.
Wheres the beef THG?
I don’t think this covered it, 965 is same stepping but what IS important is that the IMC is better at handling its chores now.
IMC needing less voltage when O/C =producing less heat. Hopefully we can all see if that is so shortly, but I guess not in this article.
I don’t think this covered it, 965 is same stepping but what IS important is that the IMC is better at handling its chores now.
IMC needing less voltage when O/C =producing less heat. Hopefully we can all see if that is so shortly, but I guess not in this article.
[citation][nom]Pei-chen[/nom]PII and i7 begin to remind me of P4 and Athlon 64. PII can clock higher and OC much higher but needs at least a 1GHz advantage to level the field.[/citation]
This is nothing like that as the i7 can clock much higher (from 2.6 to 3.8). The fact that it beats the PII at stock speeds makes it even less similar.
This is nothing like that as the i7 can clock much higher (from 2.6 to 3.8). The fact that it beats the PII at stock speeds makes it even less similar.
THis is a new article for an old processor. AMD changed the multiplier FOR YOU. I can do this myself in 2 min literally, don't need to be charged extra for that.
I don't know how TH pulled these results, and are they legitimate, but they are humiliating for the 965.
Fist, it barely shows benefit from overclocking to 3.8.
Second, the 9550 (WHY USE THE S VERSION THAT COSTS OVER 300??) at stock speed 'trades blows' with a 3.8 ghz AMD cpu. What? The 9550 will overclock way over 4.0 Ghz. Even on air. Even I did that. How will it compare THEN with a overclocked AMD?
Talking about AMD deals? (the 965 deals don't look too impressive) How about you walk in microcenter and pick a E0 9550 for 169?
How about power consumption at 140W vs 95W (for the real 9550).
AMD needs something new and quickly, or it will turn belly up. They bleed cash like there is no tomorrow. I mean by the billions. And then I will be f#kkied up, because I will have to pay double for Intel and see a new generation once every decade.
Comments about comparison with i7 are just out of place.
To Toms Hardware: These numbers look too bad for AMD, and I have some doubt that they were manipulated. ALso, you talk about comparison with the 9550 because of same price range, but your test is with 9550S which is a different animal. Then on power consumption you put the S power draw. That wasn't fair.
I don't know how TH pulled these results, and are they legitimate, but they are humiliating for the 965.
Fist, it barely shows benefit from overclocking to 3.8.
Second, the 9550 (WHY USE THE S VERSION THAT COSTS OVER 300??) at stock speed 'trades blows' with a 3.8 ghz AMD cpu. What? The 9550 will overclock way over 4.0 Ghz. Even on air. Even I did that. How will it compare THEN with a overclocked AMD?
Talking about AMD deals? (the 965 deals don't look too impressive) How about you walk in microcenter and pick a E0 9550 for 169?
How about power consumption at 140W vs 95W (for the real 9550).
AMD needs something new and quickly, or it will turn belly up. They bleed cash like there is no tomorrow. I mean by the billions. And then I will be f#kkied up, because I will have to pay double for Intel and see a new generation once every decade.
Comments about comparison with i7 are just out of place.
To Toms Hardware: These numbers look too bad for AMD, and I have some doubt that they were manipulated. ALso, you talk about comparison with the 9550 because of same price range, but your test is with 9550S which is a different animal. Then on power consumption you put the S power draw. That wasn't fair.
joejamesatou
Distinguished
- Mar 18, 2009
- 19
- 0
- 18,510
Jeez. Let's post links in the article to AMD bundles on Newegg. This article is so blantantly biased. The competitor to the AMD 965 is the i7 920, which beats it down even when its 3.8ghz vs. 2.66.
Just go buy a Core i7 920 for $199 at a major retailer. Nothing can touch it at, and at that price it undercuts the AMD X4965 by over $40. Plus you can overclock 1.0+ ghz with ease. Something no AMD chip can do without a liquid.
Just go buy a Core i7 920 for $199 at a major retailer. Nothing can touch it at, and at that price it undercuts the AMD X4965 by over $40. Plus you can overclock 1.0+ ghz with ease. Something no AMD chip can do without a liquid.
joejamesatou
Distinguished
- Mar 18, 2009
- 19
- 0
- 18,510
Jeez. Let's post links in the article to AMD bundles on Newegg. This article is so blantantly biased. The competitor to the AMD 965 is the i7 920, which beats it down even when its 3.8ghz vs. 2.66.
Just go buy a Core i7 920 for $199 at a major retailer. Nothing can touch it at, and at that price it undercuts the AMD X4965 by over $40. Plus you can overclock 1.0+ ghz with ease. Something no AMD chip can do without a liquid.
Just go buy a Core i7 920 for $199 at a major retailer. Nothing can touch it at, and at that price it undercuts the AMD X4965 by over $40. Plus you can overclock 1.0+ ghz with ease. Something no AMD chip can do without a liquid.
Great article! I really loved the simulated core i5, which was a very creative and informative idea.
One thing bugs me though - Since it's a black edition processor, NB overclock is as easy as oc'ing the core. Why not do that to uncover the maximum potential of this chip?
I'm asking because I have a measly phenom x3 710 non-be chip and after reaching a 2.5ghz nb overclock fairly easily I got really curious on how this affects performance!
I've also heard that the 955 (and probably the 965) can achieve 2.8 or even 3ghz nb overclock fairly easily, and that it has a really positive affect on system performance in either games / applications.
One thing bugs me though - Since it's a black edition processor, NB overclock is as easy as oc'ing the core. Why not do that to uncover the maximum potential of this chip?
I'm asking because I have a measly phenom x3 710 non-be chip and after reaching a 2.5ghz nb overclock fairly easily I got really curious on how this affects performance!
I've also heard that the 955 (and probably the 965) can achieve 2.8 or even 3ghz nb overclock fairly easily, and that it has a really positive affect on system performance in either games / applications.
joejamesatou
Distinguished
- Mar 18, 2009
- 19
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]Thanks for the feedback, Joe. In case you missed it, page 2 of the story covers how significantly a simulated Core i5 would win in such a match-up![/citation]
Thank you for taking the time to respond and read comments.
Thank you for taking the time to respond and read comments.
ohim
Distinguished
- Feb 10, 2009
- 1,195
- 0
- 19,360
you guys still don`t get it , is not the high end that sells the best is mainstream and low end , thow high end performance has some impact on selling lower perfromance chips where amd has absolutely no problem compeating, high end is not the major money maker on either intel or amd, and why so many ppl feel sad about this review ? you feel very good about your 720 P2s or 940 but suddenly it makes you sad about this one ..AMD may not hold the crown in top end but if i were them i would invest in marketing the chips that actualy sells the best because if you take i7 920 and compare it to C2D 5200 i bet the 5200 will win the selling and profit maker, so goes for AMD`s P2s 940/955 and the 720 and 550.
[citation][nom]MU_Engineer[/nom]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.[/citation]
And what happend during this time frame? AMD gained only ~10% of the market share due to Intel paying the competition to NOT SELL AMD. When Intel finally released a faster CPU, AMD lost that 10% market in a few months. There could have been other few things in there, but in the long run, this killed AMD's R&D budget and its well known now what the results are, AMD is striving to float.
I will always support AMD, if Intel wins and becomes the only CPU maker, every chip will be an Extreme Edition $1000+ cpu
And what happend during this time frame? AMD gained only ~10% of the market share due to Intel paying the competition to NOT SELL AMD. When Intel finally released a faster CPU, AMD lost that 10% market in a few months. There could have been other few things in there, but in the long run, this killed AMD's R&D budget and its well known now what the results are, AMD is striving to float.
I will always support AMD, if Intel wins and becomes the only CPU maker, every chip will be an Extreme Edition $1000+ cpu
personally I like anand's overclocking page, one full page on the settings, instead of a paragraph saying "4.0 was unstable, 3.9 mostly worked, 3.8 worked"
go a little more in depth when hitting overclocking, not just using a paragraph with 3 sentences or leave it out entirely.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3619&p=9
go a little more in depth when hitting overclocking, not just using a paragraph with 3 sentences or leave it out entirely.
amdgiggity
Distinguished
- Aug 14, 2009
- 4
- 0
- 18,510
Wait everyone, before you make your judgement. This benchmark/test drive on the AMD 965BE vs the Intels, is unfair and almost dishonest, and does not give an ACCURATE representation of what THIS processor is CAPABLE OF. Please read on before disregarding my comment, especially to my AMD brothers:
Toms Hardware bench tested games iwth low end graphics like L4D, and HAWX. I would like to invite EVERYONE reading this to this LINK:
http://www.techspot.com/review/185-amd-phenom2-x4-965/
When you go deep enough into this review at Tech Spot, you will see that the AMD Phenom II 965 BE can KEEP UP or SURPASS that performance of an INTEL when playing a HIGH-END game, with HIGH QUALITY, like CRYSIS itself. The AMD 965 BE OUT PERFORMS the INTEL even if by 1 fps. This is a VERY improtant point, that "tomshardware" has LEFT OUT. The enthusiasts care about GFX INTENSE games, and these guys left out crysis, the main BENCHMARK game. Please go read that review, it is far MORE accurate than what is posted here on TOMSHARDWARE.
With respect to all,
A Realist
Toms Hardware bench tested games iwth low end graphics like L4D, and HAWX. I would like to invite EVERYONE reading this to this LINK:
http://www.techspot.com/review/185-amd-phenom2-x4-965/
When you go deep enough into this review at Tech Spot, you will see that the AMD Phenom II 965 BE can KEEP UP or SURPASS that performance of an INTEL when playing a HIGH-END game, with HIGH QUALITY, like CRYSIS itself. The AMD 965 BE OUT PERFORMS the INTEL even if by 1 fps. This is a VERY improtant point, that "tomshardware" has LEFT OUT. The enthusiasts care about GFX INTENSE games, and these guys left out crysis, the main BENCHMARK game. Please go read that review, it is far MORE accurate than what is posted here on TOMSHARDWARE.
With respect to all,
A Realist
amdgiggity
Distinguished
- Aug 14, 2009
- 4
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]amdgiggity[/nom]Wait everyone, before you make your judgement. This benchmark/test drive on the AMD 965BE vs the Intels, is unfair and almost dishonest, and does not give an ACCURATE representation of what THIS processor is CAPABLE OF. Please read on before disregarding my comment, especially to my AMD brothers: Toms Hardware bench tested games iwth low end graphics like L4D, and HAWX. I would like to invite EVERYONE reading this to this LINK: http://www.techspot.com/review/185-amd-phenom2-x4-965/When you go deep enough into this review at Tech Spot, you will see that the AMD Phenom II 965 BE can KEEP UP or SURPASS that performance of an INTEL when playing a HIGH-END game, with HIGH QUALITY, like CRYSIS itself. The AMD 965 BE OUT PERFORMS the INTEL even if by 1 fps. This is a VERY improtant point, that "tomshardware" has LEFT OUT. The enthusiasts care about GFX INTENSE games, and these guys left out crysis, the main BENCHMARK game. Please go read that review, it is far MORE accurate than what is posted here on TOMSHARDWARE.With respect to all,A Realist[/citation]
And also, I would like to be more specific: Goto page 10 of the techspot review here:
http://www.techspot.com/review/185-amd-phenom2-x4-965/page10.html
AND take notice of high games set on HIGH are ran at par, or better than the I7 940.
And also, I would like to be more specific: Goto page 10 of the techspot review here:
http://www.techspot.com/review/185-amd-phenom2-x4-965/page10.html
AND take notice of high games set on HIGH are ran at par, or better than the I7 940.
- Jul 4, 2008
- 1,878
- 9
- 19,795
Thanks for the advertis...I mean, comment! Quick note to anyone who is confused about what it means to run graphically demanding games like Crysis or Stalker (oh, wait, Stalker was included here, hmm): the higher your resolution and the more taxing your settings, the *less* you'll be able to tell the difference between these processors, period. If gaming is indeed the only thing you'll be doing with your PC, I'd like to suggest spending extra on high-end graphics (even spending less on a processor if you have to).
We're sensitive to the fact that the benchmark crowd is still interested in Crysis, and we include it when it makes sense. But calling it the main benchmark game? Really? For CPUs? If you want a title you can benchmark endlessly, run Vantage. I'm counting on gamers wanting to know the performance in games they actually play.
We're sensitive to the fact that the benchmark crowd is still interested in Crysis, and we include it when it makes sense. But calling it the main benchmark game? Really? For CPUs? If you want a title you can benchmark endlessly, run Vantage. I'm counting on gamers wanting to know the performance in games they actually play.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News TSMC founder says Intel should focus on AI, not advanced process technologies- Started by Admin
- Replies: 30
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram