AMD PhenomII X3 710(720BE) 3core --> 4core PhenomII X4 920

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
lol i love my posts keep getting thumbed down by the same people. truth hurts. thumb me down more - do not debate when benchmarks are shown. (way of the noob)
 


I'd buy AMD for the sake of great motherboards... I mean like matx Crossfire for $100... (jetway)
 


I don't know really one way or another but what i can say is that the anandtehc site, where the user Flipped Gazeleel claimed he got it to work, there was soem pictures you might have missed:

http://picasaweb.google.com/way.of.the.camera/PhenomIIX3X4#

those are F.G.'s so if you have any questions [or qoubt] why not just ask him instead of all this ranting and raving...in the meantime I am soo thinking about this little tri-core to four-core set-up.

I honestly wonder if you need a biostar, or would a gigbyte be fine in particular the: GA-MA790FXT-UD5P.

It does seem a little too easy to be true, and if something is too good to be true, than it ususally is.

But I still await further testing.
 
Still no full true Prime 95 test shwoing. I am waiting till I see one passing Prime 95 at the stock 940 voltage. If it has to have a higher voltage to keep it stable with the 4th core enabled then its useless as that will limit OCing and push heat/power consumption up as well as lower the CPUs life.

But until then I find its useless to do without stability being proven.
 
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4MCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

The single best review of i7 on the web and one anybody thinking of buying an i7 should read.

PS - this review was done way before the THG review caused so much consternation.
Click to expand...

So the only test they compare it to Coe 2 Quad clock per clock is of course Lost Planet. Instead of doing it with multi GPUs to see if the performance is better like THG shows. Either way the test is useless since FC2 is a meh game really.
 
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4MCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

The single best review of i7 on the web and one anybody thinking of buying an i7 should read.

PS - this review was done way before the THG review caused so much consternation.
Click to expand...


For cring out loud he just got his yesterday and wants to see how high he can overclock it first. Right now he is at 3GHz.
 
Just a quick note:

Chris Angelini's article showing how GTX280 had issues with the Intel i7 920 CPU

Look at "Possibility #5" for an example of how (at the time of the writing) the card from nVidia was not working as efficiently as with the ATI card...whether it was driver related or otherwise.

This article also articulated how as the graphics level went up, the i7 processor was less capable of rendering the game Far Cry 2 as well as the AMD Phenom II could with the nVidia cards.

So for the real, super-hard-core gamer...who is gonna play everything at 2560x1600 4xAA 8xAF or whatever....

I'd say AMD.

Otherwise, i7 if you can afford it.

Anyways. Mobo and CPU on the way from Newegg :)
 
I have to enter the discussion again...

i7 is bottlenecked by most any GPU setup, hence why single GPU setups result in the same FPS between i7 and PII. With 2+ cards however, i7 proves which CPU is more powerful.

The real question is why buy a PII when it doesn't have enough power to drive current CF/SLI setups when for ~$100 more i7 can. I don't think PII is going to have much lasting power if its already maxed with current GPUs...As an upgrade, fine, but not worth it for a new system.
 
But very little setups actually have multi-GPUs in them. Heck, most setups out there that features discrete graphics card have a GPU that's less than 300 bucks. For those people, Phenom II is really more than enough.

Core i7 on the other hand, while has higher performances, also comes with higher price tags. To be honest, no one is going to shell out another hundred dollars or so just so that they get the best performance on the street. Especially given the current economic climate, I see little to no reason for gamers to upgrade to Core i7.

I believe Phenom II will be very popular among those who either wants to upgrade, or purchasing a new rig.
 


Um...I have a question.

If a video card processes all the same information for a game, it would process it at the same rate on-board for an Intel as it would an AMD.

The GPU does not bottleneck the Intel. It processes the same for any processor or motherboard.

The motherboard may restrict speed, but that would be equal for both as well on the bus (whether x16 or x8 mode).

The graphics driver interface to the Intel may not be as efficient as the one to the AMD.
The motherboard driver to the Intel may not be as efficient as the one to the AMD.

But, the hardware works the same no matter what CPU instructs it.

BTW, I would again suggest the article, as it clearly shows the Intel i7 920 only beats the AMD Phenom II X4 940 at the lower end resolutions.

I would not consider a GTX280 1GB to be a "bottlenecked" card, as it is displaying 41.83/48.09 FPS on the Intel and AMD respectively at 2560x1600.

In fact, Chris (in the article) even shows that between the two processors using a single Radeon 4870 512MB graphics card running at 1920x1200 no AA, the Phenom II even nudges out the i7 920.

And, Chris finishes up the article by stating this:
"The bottom line here, first and foremost, is that all of the data generated and seen in the Socket AM3 launch piece was, in fact, right on the money.

The data suggests that, using an AMD Radeon-based graphics card, you'll likely see the scaling that many other sites have presented, with Intel's Core i7 besting the Phenom II right up to 2560x1600 (refer to the first chart on this page for proof there).

At 640x480--a largely synthetic measure of processor performance, the Core i7 rules the roost under the power of a GeForce GTX 280, too. But again, the graphics load here is minimal. Anything higher--even 1280x1024, another resolution you'd expect to be CPU-bound on these cutting-edge platforms--and Nvidia's card cannot translate the Core i7's microarchitecture into the same performance advantage, giving AMD's Phenom II-series chips the advantage seen in the AM3 story and in the two pages you've just read. "

As I have stated, I think it has something more to do with the interfacing via the driver than the hardware.

But, I'm no hardware expert...so...who knows.
 
I think we need to get back on topic. They guy at Anand has his CPU now at 3.2GHz. on all cores. If it was not stable I don't think he could have overclocked it that high.
 


But has he tested Prime 95 stability or just gotten it to OC and just boot? There is a big difference in that. You can probably OC the CPU with the 4th core enabled but for stanility it may not OC as well as just a X3 without the 4th core enabled.
 


I agree. However, I did not like not having a reliable way to measure core temps - Everest would only display CPU temp (not core), AMD Overdrive, Core temp, etc. were displaying temps around 47C at load, which is a highly doubtful reading. Everest displayed a CPU temp of ~ 60C, so there is a significant chance that core temps are higher than that. I need to get a better HSF.
 
If this is a mistake, then so was 800 shaders on the 4870. Its all maketing. Does wonders sometimes. I tried to keep telling people this is a different AMD, but few listened. I just hope it lasts for awhile, or the duration of the chip. Oh, yes its very possible
 
hmmm, according to Digitimes, some manufacturers actually speculated that this may be a "hype" cooked up by AMD to increase exposure of the X3 line. From the marketing standpoint, this move is brilliant.
 


The difference is that we know ATI wanted 800 shaders. AMD never stated they wanted this and if they did, as said it is a brilliant move to sucker people into buying a tri core thinking it will turn into a quad.

As for the temps, 60c isn't that bad for load. But its not good if no program will report correct temps per core. Would make OCing pretty hard.
 
Actually, the 800 were an addition, a surprise even for ATI, as when they were all done with the chip, they needed pad space and had more than enough, and thats why it has 800. A design addition without planning. And it worked as well. Something similar here as well. Maybe too similar?
 
So, can this be done, saying one used a batch 0904 tri-core, 710 or 720?

does it have to be a biostar motherboard, what about a gigabyte, the 790fx, w/ AM3 support?

Extremly curious is all, this has got me rethinking the whole core i7, I hoenstly didn't wnat to go that route, do you think using the MSI k9an2, w/ ddr2 ram is goign to hamper the performance of the deneb core?

B/c that would be such a cheap upgrade route from the fx-62...
 
Ive seen a few different batches as well as a few different mobos so far. Check out XS, they have several threads going there with different people reporting their results. Some work, some dont, both for batch and mobo/bios
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom