AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Review

[amdgiggity]

[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]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.[/citation]

It's a pointless benchmark at that point because all the procs listed will over-kill those games ANYWAY. What do numbers that we don't experience (above 60fps) change? Not much.

If you want to compare low end games with high end procs, go ahead. But it just seems pointless benchmarking games these procs over kill.

bench mark something that requires more power, more visual enhancements. People look at these comparisons and benchmark, and think "man i7 is destroying these amd's" when in reality, no it's not. Because this article gives only 50%, and misses out on the other 50 % (higher end gaming). This comparison here between the intels and the new 965 BE is simply incomplete, and it sends an inaccurate message.

With respect,
AmdGiggity

 

[cangelini]

amd,

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, though I appreciate the thought in your commentary.

As a point of fact, most of these processors are technically overkill for gaming, period. If you're seeing a 1 fps difference between an AMD CPU and an Intel CPU at super-high graphics settings, my point is illustrated perfectly: that system is graphics-bound, and the "purchaser" should have spent more on graphics than a processor.

We *do* benchmark things that require more power, hence the threaded A/V tests, productivity metrics, etc. *That* is where your CPU is going to shine. Yes, gaming tests are necessary data too, but they're much better measures when comparing graphics cards.

As far as the settings go, our Stalker tests at 1920x1200 with 4xAA should be plenty-intensive to show that processor power isn't being emphasized here. If you want to point out that "at the end of the day, the i7 won't help you much in high-res gaming," then that's fine, and I agree completely. But calling out the story as inaccurate isn't telling the right story, because processor-bound results don't say anything positive about one CPU vendor or another. They say the reviewed system is not well-balanced at those settings.

Thanks again,
Chris

 

[amdgiggity]

[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]amd,We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one, though I appreciate the thought in your commentary.As a point of fact, most of these processors are technically overkill for gaming, period. If you're seeing a 1 fps difference between an AMD CPU and an Intel CPU at super-high graphics settings, my point is illustrated perfectly: that system is graphics-bound, and the "purchaser" should have spent more on graphics than a processor. We *do* benchmark things that require more power, hence the threaded A/V tests, productivity metrics, etc. *That* is where your CPU is going to shine. Yes, gaming tests are necessary data too, but they're much better measures when comparing graphics cards.As far as the settings go, our Stalker tests at 1920x1200 with 4xAA should be plenty-intensive to show that processor power isn't being emphasized here. If you want to point out that "at the end of the day, the i7 won't help you much in high-res gaming," then that's fine, and I agree completely. But calling out the story as inaccurate isn't telling the right story, because processor-bound results don't say anything positive about one CPU vendor or another. They say the reviewed system is not well-balanced at those settings.Thanks again,Chris[/citation]


Thank you for your thoughts in your reply. You're right, we have to agree to disagree here or else we can go on forever here.

With respect,
AMDGiggity

 

[playerone]

Good stuff here as to apples to apples:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/05/19/real_world_gameplay_cpu_scaling/7

I love the I7 for rendering as well as other things but the PH II are a bargain depending on a few things and what you will be doing, but you have to love the I7.

 

[cangelini]

Perhaps I'm missing something, Player. In the link provided, I see one instance after another of the Core i7 running faster than the Phenom II.

Look, guys. I'm not trying to introduce some revolutionary new concept here. As a general rule, as you increase resolution and graphical detail, processor performance very rapidly takes a backseat to the capabilities of your graphics card. It is absolutely expected to see a lineup of compared CPUs come closer and closer together in frame rate as you scale those settings up.

Arguing that 1920x1200 with anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering enabled is somehow unfairly stacking the deck in Intel's favor because real enthusiasts are only interested in Crysis with Ultra quality settings at 2560 is just unrealistic.

I'm just going to have to disagree on this one.

 

[haplo602]

cangelini, what about some Linux tests ? maybe you could take a look at the Phoronix test suite over at phoronix.com ?

I know Linux is not that hot a topic, but it would help some folks to pick what they need.

 

[ohim]

Cangelini , didn`t had the time to read all this but the guy is right you know , nobody will take a PII 965 or a i7 920 to play games at low graphic quality, best benchmarks are the real world aplications where you will use your pc, i don`t care that a CPU has 12312 more sithetic points over another , i don`t care that a CPU can calculate PI in 2 seconds. best is to do real world aplication where the user will be using his PC, that will point out something that many doesn`t see in some games even older 2 core CPUs will perform about the same the advantage of the new CPU`s will be seen only on audio / video / compresion aplications ... and btw hope we will never see Itunes in tests again since its Apple + intel aplication if you understand what i say 😉 cheers

 

[ohim]

btw the guy didn`t advertised he posted a link from a rival tech site , you know .. competition leads to great things like better articles 😀

 

[ReTardReTard]

If only we had all of them at the same speed say about 3604mhz that the q9550 gets on air with intel stock fan @ 424x8.5 and cpu

 

[ohim]

you do realise that not all overclock their CPUs and while going with overclock you move the ballance for performance / watt

 

[ReTardReTard]

[citation][nom]haplo602[/nom]cangelini, what about some Linux tests ? maybe you could take a look at the Phoronix test suite over at phoronix.com ?I know Linux is not that hot a topic, but it would help some folks to pick what they need.[/citation]

Yup this is a good idea as I bought my q9550 that replaced the amd pii x4 955 just to compile linux from scratch ie: gcc4.4.1 python 2.6.2-r2 openrc 5.* all old / prehistoric stuff like that and the painfull kde from scratch.

Problem = are you willing to use any old busted up linux distro or something that is part of the 21st century for the linux test ?
This will make a huge diffs. on performance with MAKEOPTS="-j8 -4" as used in gcc4.4.1 or old school -j32 in pre gcc 4.4.1 for the to get it idling.

 

[cangelini]

Advertisement for AMD, ohim, not the site. In what was supposed to be critical of this story's neutrality, there was an ironic sense of bias in that post.

And who's talking about low quality settings? Go down the list on page four: High, High, Max, High. These are current games, realistic settings, and playable frame rates.

 

[ReTardReTard]

[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]you do realize that not all overclock their CPUs and while going with overclock you move the balance for performance / watt[/citation]

True but saving power = I use my laptop, Low power Desktop = ati 4830 + 95W q9550@3.6ghz for me at total 300w about oc'd, uses double what my 120w laptop psu uses "rated" might be more actually on laptop usage.

Have a look at this online PSU power calculator.
http://extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.jsp

 

[ohim]

[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]Advertisement for AMD, ohim, not the site. In what was supposed to be critical of this story's neutrality, there was an ironic sense of bias in that post. And who's talking about low quality settings? Go down the list on page four: High, High, Max, High. These are current games, realistic settings, and playable frame rates.[/citation]sorry my bad, told you din`t read all the stuff 😀

 

[bildo123]

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.

True, you can build an AMD gaming rig for much cheaper, and still have it perform decently/well.

 

[bk420]

I'm not sure it's worth the price. I would have loved to see a TWKR before this cpu. At least that could have sold for better margins. Oh well, AMD please don't produce many of these as they probably wont sell well. The 955 is a better AM3 choice for the money.

I hope they are spending more time developing the ATI 5000 series cards more than this CPU.

This CPU just seems like a waste of money to upgrade for only 200mhz and a worse TPD.

 

[blackbyron]

AMD cpus are not bad, but I think that AMD should improve the power consumption and the performance on cpus to match up with Intel. They need to come up something new.

 

[belial2k]

I'm really rooting for AMD, but wanting them to outperform intel on a value basis and them actually doing it are two different things that a lot of people seem to confuse. It really makes it hard to find any price points where AMD makes more sense. The 720BE might be the last AMD I can recommend for now. The good news is, as bad as things look for their CPUs the ATI branch is looking better and better. They win almost every price point against Nvidia....so hopefully that will be enough to keep them in business for now.

 

[playerone]

Well these guys found Overclocking improved easily:

http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1656

Not sure if you guys gave the NB and VDDNB xtra voltage when you did your O/C but that might be what is holding you back, also VDDA set at 2.8 keeps the voltage stable under load.

My little old 940 does 3.92 on air and that is with 8gb 5-5-5 running @ 1200 with NB running 2800 on an M4N82 tri SLI board thru win7-64 http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=596569

I have wonder what you are doing to get nocked back every time, with your 955 and now with your 965?

 

[ikaroh]

"If you're using the X4 965 on an AM2+ motherboard, speeds of up to DDR2-1066 are officially available. If you're using it on an AM3 platform, you can install DDR3-1333, though it should be noted that only one module per channel works at that frequency."

Wait...does this mean you can run this cpu:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103692

On a mobo that only states an AM2/AM2+ compatibility, like this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131324

 

[ikaroh]

[citation][nom]ikaroh[/nom]"If you're using the X4 965 on an AM2+ motherboard, speeds of up to DDR2-1066 are officially available. If you're using it on an AM3 platform, you can install DDR3-1333, though it should be noted that only one module per channel works at that frequency."Wait...does this mean you can run this cpu:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819103692On a mobo that only states an AM2/AM2+ compatibility, like this one:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6813131324[/citation]

That isn't exactly the board I have. Mine is a M3A78-PRO.

 

[da bahstid]

Well, AMD's unlikely to release any "Nehalem-killer" until 2011 when Bulldozer comes out, and even that's a matter of "wait and see". What they can do is release 6-core AM3 chips as they already have with their server chips. Though it will still be behind i9, and who really knows if anything will help utilize those extra cores (for either chip) anyway.

However, I think it's fair to say that these results despite being reliably in favor of i7 and *maybe* i5 also show AMD isn't too horribly far behind to not be competitive. Because at the end of the day, all these CPUs demonstrate similar framerates, often within 10% of each other, despite using a beefy dual-gpu videocard and not a lot of AF. I don't expect to need to upgrade either my Core2Duo or PhenomII rigs (other than maybe getting a Q9550 to replace the E8500) for a couple years.

 

[ravenware]

[citation][nom]amdgiggity[/nom]Thank you for your thoughts in your reply. You're right, we have to agree to disagree here or else we can go on forever here.With respect,AMDGiggity[/citation]
While the rated FPS after the 60FPS is rather pointless, what it does show is how the CPUs stack up against each other and you can get a good idea on how well they will perform in future apps. FarCry2 and Stalker CS are somewhat demanding, perhaps not quite as demanding as crysis but I think they do a fair job displaying processing prowess of the test bed chips.

I would like to see fallout3 in more of the benches though.

 

[oren levy]

[citation][nom]ikaroh[/nom]"If you're using the X4 965 on an AM2+ motherboard, speeds of up to DDR2-1066 are officially available. If you're using it on an AM3 platform, you can install DDR3-1333, though it should be noted that only one module per channel works at that frequency."Wait...does this mean you can run this cpu:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819103692On a mobo that only states an AM2/AM2+ compatibility, like this one:http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6813131324[/citation]

I agree Thats is all about AMD SETUP u can choose planty of mobo around 60-90$ that will do the job well unlike intel one chipset very expansive short life.

personally i recommended the GIGABYTE GA-MA770-UD3 sb710 rev2 thow it is run much cooler then asus mobo u can undervolt the cpu easy or oc u can controll both fan speeds and it is cheap with memory u are under 100$
why to think about intel?i meen if we have unlimited budget i understand.
most of hte time the computer is idle and there is advantage in power consumption .i uses a c&Q tool like phenommsrtweeker to make my profile of saving energy\keep the latencyes down.
i am building many computer in diffrent configuration.for years i am upgrading amd cpu/memory during the life of the computers. in intel side never happan old memory or cpu uncompatible....
i would invest my extra mony on fast hard drive raptor or ssd to feel i am on responsive machine.

 

[Guest]

Why doesn't amd release a motherboard/chipset that can support 2 phenom II for the personal consumer market. I love AMD but I also know that intel core i series just slaps the phenoms around. Now if there is some way for amd to repeat its FX series motherboard made for the phenoms, I would think its safe to say that 2 phenom II working together can give the i7 a run for its money.