Phenom 2 920 and 940 Benchmarks

[WR]

First of all, read this, as it debunks i7 as THE solution for multi card setups, and even higher gpus. http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=g [...] rticID=895

You do realize what my link means , dont you? I knew this all along, and yet its swept aside. We all knew that scaling on P1 would be killer, but they had to reach higher freqs.

Note that it's important how you interpret the graphs: this is a performance scaling investigation, not an overclocking scaling investigation. Please understand that the given increases are expressed in comparison to a very low base frequency, not at stock speeds. For instance, the performance scaling of the HT Link frequency may seem very impressive in the 3D benchmark, but if you look more closely, you'll notice that 1GHz is almost enough to maximize performance

They give a clear disclaimer that the conclusion is theoretical, not empirically confirmed. They investigated downward scaling, but you are extrapolating that to upward scaling. Downward scaling is artificial bottlenecking.

They also make no comparison to i7. To know how P2 does with high end graphics, someone has to test it directly.

 

[baldinie]

Thats the thing though. A lot of sites are not showing multi GPU setups when testing these CPUs. That doesn't give a full spectrum since multi GPU setups have been getting pretty common these days. You can CF/SLI anything now, even the cheap cards.



Yea but the biggest difference is the fact that he has one and we don't. He has the experience with the CPU. All we have are results from some sites. Same goes with Phenom II. We don't have anyone here who actually has their hands on one.

Roadrunner may be a bit off, but he has a Core i7 so he can truly say how well it performs.

He may have experience with that i7, but doesn't mean he has the ability to push all available hardware to its limit? does he also have a Phenom 2 940 and the best GPU's (i.e 2 x 4870 x2s)?

the fact of the matter is this, if u have say an e8400 and a HD4870, and a 22" monitor, and ur set up will let u play at your monitor's max resolution without stuttering, than the i7 and phenom 2 are of no importance what so ever.

I started this post, so i feel the need to jump in here. LOOK! the i7 is a GREAT piece of tech! BUT are we all forgetting that it is jumping into AMD's tech book, NO FSB (AMD CPU) integrated mem controller (AMD), single silicon bed (AMD). its basically an AMD Phenom will all the bugs sorted on a 45nm, the i7 is what the Phenom SHOULD have been. but what it all comes down to, whether you be AMD or i7, is this... WHAT DO YOU NEED YOUR PC TO DO! most games will run fine on an e8400 or amd x2 6000 with a good graphics card. it doesn't matter if you're set up gets 30 fps or 130, you're eye can only see around 25..so live with it.

and someone mentioned before, why cant AMD compete at the top end...why bother?? there is something like 90million PC's sold every year, only about 5000 of them are the very top end, thats not really a market worth chasing. I've said before, AMD's turn over is less than intel's RnD budget, so u kind of hope intel's stuff is better. But AMD is playin its hand well, its going after the mainstream, and making cheap CPU's on much more cost effective setups. AMD used to be the underdog winning through, the athlon XP put intel on the back foot. The phenom and the phenom 2 are capable processors. the intel offerings are better, but with a higher price tag.

If AMD keep in the fight, we all win from competition. I personally prefer the current AMD offering, cheap mobo, ram, and cpu and their graphics cards, against intel's over priced option. This is not a market in which it pays to have a long term bias.

 

[ryman554]

and someone mentioned before, why cant AMD compete at the top end...why bother?? there is something like 90million PC's sold every year, only about 5000 of them are the very top end, thats not really a market worth chasing.

Because it sets your pricing.

If you can not compete at the high end and are forced to price youself to be competitive, then you are reliant on your competitor to set your prices.

Since it takes exactly the same amount of money to make a high performing part vs. a low performing part (for a given process), that means that your (less common) highest bin parts are selling for the same price as your competitors (more common) medium to low bin parts. That means higher margins for your competitor. That means he has more money to spend on R&D for the next generation Which makes it all the more harder to compete the next go-round.

It might be a drop in the bucket for chips sold, but it has a *huge* impact in profitability. If you want AMD to stick around, they need to compete at the high end in the markets they are in.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Yea, just look at the crap sales of the 4870, and the price it came in at too.

 

[yipsl]

Hun? AMD fan? Wait how the heck? Ok...im starting to think this website is full of little kids or something..whatever but to me i7 is real expensive. .

You missed the joke. Look at my sig and read my post again.

I did state that it's not mainstream gaming, but only upper level performance where i7 matters at all. It's definitly out of my price range.

if you were talking about me being an amd fan i just go with the fastest but i7 is not being fair on my wallet so i go with seconds. Yes! i have an intel. Also i like Gaming but i personally think having 2 4870's x 2 falls in the enthusiast level more than gamer. At least to all my friends it does..

I'm the AMD fan. I like pins on my CPU's, and I like the underdog.

Where GPU's are concerned, AMD is not the underdog, but I still think of it as the ATI division of AMD. I've preferred ATI since the AIW Radeon 8500 128.

I posted something about AMD here once but it was playing around since people here freak out when they hear the worrds AMD is better. I know is not but i dont know people are just weird and i enjoy seeing them get mad over simple phrases that have no meaning to me what so ever. Just saying in case you though maybe i don't know lol.

AMD is better at certain price points, but it still depends on what you want to do with your system.

I looked at the Tom's budget gaming rig setup for this month and e-mailed it to a friend who wants me to research an Intel system for him. I told him that I basically went for a similar AMD system in September -- triple core @ 2.4 instead of dual @ 2.66, with the legacy 3870x2 I bought last February being equal much of the time to a 4850.

He doesn't overclock either and isn't convinced he'll need 3 or 4 cores, as he only games (mostly WoW and RTS) and does iTunes (which is optimized for Intel). A week or so ago, I told him his old case with only two fans, and 400 watt Ultra PSU with only 20 amps on the 12 volt rail won't cut it and recommended an Antec Three Hundred case and Antec Neo 550 PSU. I'd earlier sent him the article from Xbit Labs comparing the new budget Intels to older budget Intels plus the Phenom 8750.

Pretty much everything I recommended he upgrade to is in the budget article, but if he did all the stuff I do, I'd have recommended an 8750 with a nice 790GX board instead. I game, but I do video stuff too, and I like my AMD chipsets and IGP for back up or extra monitors.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-2-overclock,2113.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e7300-pdc-e5200.html

I'm an AMD fan but I can recommend Intel when it's the best for what a friend wants. He's upgrading from an older Athlon X2 that's just too slow for WoW with a 7600gs (at least at the resolution of the new monitor he bought).

 

[jimmysmitty]

He may have experience with that i7, but doesn't mean he has the ability to push all available hardware to its limit? does he also have a Phenom 2 940 and the best GPU's (i.e 2 x 4870 x2s)?

the fact of the matter is this, if u have say an e8400 and a HD4870, and a 22" monitor, and ur set up will let u play at your monitor's max resolution without stuttering, than the i7 and phenom 2 are of no importance what so ever.

I started this post, so i feel the need to jump in here. LOOK! the i7 is a GREAT piece of tech! BUT are we all forgetting that it is jumping into AMD's tech book, NO FSB (AMD CPU) integrated mem controller (AMD), single silicon bed (AMD). its basically an AMD Phenom will all the bugs sorted on a 45nm, the i7 is what the Phenom SHOULD have been. but what it all comes down to, whether you be AMD or i7, is this... WHAT DO YOU NEED YOUR PC TO DO! most games will run fine on an e8400 or amd x2 6000 with a good graphics card. it doesn't matter if you're set up gets 30 fps or 130, you're eye can only see around 25..so live with it.

and someone mentioned before, why cant AMD compete at the top end...why bother?? there is something like 90million PC's sold every year, only about 5000 of them are the very top end, thats not really a market worth chasing. I've said before, AMD's turn over is less than intel's RnD budget, so u kind of hope intel's stuff is better. But AMD is playin its hand well, its going after the mainstream, and making cheap CPU's on much more cost effective setups. AMD used to be the underdog winning through, the athlon XP put intel on the back foot. The phenom and the phenom 2 are capable processors. the intel offerings are better, but with a higher price tag.

If AMD keep in the fight, we all win from competition. I personally prefer the current AMD offering, cheap mobo, ram, and cpu and their graphics cards, against intel's over priced option. This is not a market in which it pays to have a long term bias.

Actually a lot of sites show that a Core i7 will push newer GPUs, especially in multi GPU setups to beyond their max with current hardware.

As for the Intel copying AMD thing, its been said many times before. Technically Intel has a 80 core naitive CPU, but they don't plan on releasing it anytime soon. Intel also has been working on a IMC since the 486. But they decided not to use them. But I understand what you are saying. Although the thing is that most of the benefits of what AMD has had since K8 are mainly seen in the server market.

And as said before, If AMD cannot compete in the high end they lose a lot of money. Back when K8, Athlon X2, was king they could price their chips as top teir and get nice returns from it. Like the $1K+ Quad FX chips. But now they have to compete in the mid to low end with Intel, and the thing is that Intel can afford it. And AMD cannot. And they know that.

Either way my point about Roadrunner still stands. He has a Core i7. He knows what it can do. We only see what other people say. So he loves the chip. I love my Q6600 cuz I know that it rocks. But no one here really has a Phenom II to show us results and let us know for sure if what the sites are saying is true or just hype.

 

[amdfangirl]

I love my crappy BE-2400 and nothing can take that away from me... except maybe a ULV Core 2 Duo...

I don't care what sites say about you must buy this graphics cuz you can play this game in HD. I'm playing games like Left 4 Dead or The Witcher on my puny IGP! As long as the gameplay is smooth I don't care! Does it matter if the grass is slighty greener or if your avatar has better hair, I don't care! The whole point games is to be fun, but by the end of all those bills and credit card debt, you can finally see it's not. Why upgrade if it does the job well enough? Sure I might have to upgrade, but why now? I can play Left 4 Dead perfectly well!

Why do you buy this unnecessary stuff? If my computer does what I need it to, I'm fine with it.

Corporations love making money. It's what they do. It doesn't matter if it's Intel, AMD or even Mc Donalds. All they're here for resides in our credit cards and wallets. Loyalty to companies is foolishness.

 

[yipsl]

I partly agree with you amdfangirl, but with a caveat. When my 3870x2 died, I had to switch to HD3200 IGP until it was replaced.

I didn't notice much of a difference in look in LOTRO (proves that I wasn't getting Crossfire after all), but when I checked out The Witcher and Oblivion, I had to crank the graphics way down and I just didn't like the look. I certainly wouldn't play Mass Effect on it (the one single player CRPG that interests me right now).

Granted, I won't buy another $450 dual GPU ever again. It didn't live up to the hype and was matched by a sub $200 part six months later. I might even get a basic 4830 as a stopgap for 2009 as it will be faster than the "single" 3870 performance I get with the dual GPU card in LOTRO.

I like eye candy, which is more important in an immersive MMO than in a single player RPG, FPS or RTS. It's fun wandering around areas where the mobs don't see you collecting resources and looking at the scenary and occasionally healing lower levels who bit off more mob than they can chew.

I just agree that there's a bang for the buck sweet spot where spending too much is simply ridiculous. Too much depends on everyone's budget and for some, that $450 I spent 11 months ago is normal every time there's a major refresh.

I never use credit cards for upgrades. I use annual bonus and part of my income tax refund, but I'm back to thinking that a $125 GPU is the best for gaming at my budget. I'd rather pay that every year and a half than waste another $450 all at once on just one part.

 

[amdfangirl]

Ok, maybe the Witcher with the IGP sucks, but I'm not gonna spend that much on a graphics card, CPU or motherboard granted that in 12 months or so it will be at the bottom of the spectrum.

I normally play bargain basement games which are normally a couple of years old so my hardware can easily take it. If not I'll get an upgrade so I can play them. Depends what you use the computer for.

 

[amdfangirl]

Bleeding edge is bleeding wallet!

Sure this hyper-consumerism of extreme profits boosts a companies revenue and takes the world outta recession, but think for a moment how these parts are made. Raw materials getting extracted from Mother Earth is required and if we don't change our ways, were most likely to end up with a hyper-inflated economy but a desolate world which is hard to call home.

Spare a thought for everything it takes to power all those quad-fire computers and see how it effects this world.

 

[dattimr]

Nice, fangirl and yipsl. But I don't agree with some things you stated, Jimmy. The high-end doesn't matter that much for both AMD and Intel if not for the "halo effect", since it's an almost irrelevant part of their profits.

Also, let's not forget that the overclocking madness on both series of CPUs also doesn't matter for their financial success, since [most] OEMs will only sell them at stock, so it all comes down to what frequency those things will be released at stock, just as to their pricing and availability.

Current Core 2 Quad prices are ridiculous for mid-range offerings, except for the lovely Q6600, I mean, what's up with those Q8200s and Q9300s prices? AMD can fill the gap nicely - supposing they can supply the demand.

Another interesting point is how Deneb will compare against Core "i5". That's the real dealbreaker for both companies. I doubt i5 will beat i7, although Intel might - somehow - "optimize it for desktop".

I can hardly think of a reason why an average person would upgrade to i5 if the performance is far bellow that of i7 and if that person already own a decent Core 2 CPU. The only reason would be "the platform", so it will be something interesting to watch.

Of course there's Intel's marketing, but there's also the global economy current situation - which, by the way, makes me wonder if most people will even bother to look at quad-core CPUs.

Supposing i5 performs just as well as i7 "for us", Intel would cannibalize i7 sales. The 920's price is already very decent, so, i5 either will have to be priced way lower than i7 or i7 will need to remain priced very high, except for one or two models.

Intel will a have a tough fight against its own products and, perhaps, against those of AMD.

 

[amdfangirl]

I'm sure we'll see.

 

[baldinie]

I'd just like to make a point. Firstly it does cost more to make the higher end stuff, you need better quality parts and silicon and most have more cache...etc. But the fact is, (as someone stated, the world economy isn't exactly bumper atm), if people are only buying, or mainly buying the mid range, and AMD fill that demand while making a profit, Intel will have to lower their price to compete and given their pricing may mean making a loss on the lower end stuff. Or they cant compete on pricing with their current range of stuff, like they did before and had to release the e7xxx. What i'm sayin is, companies make the high end (QX9xxx i7965) then strip them down to make a lower end. If after you do that you're left with a £200 product (i7 920) and AMD release a £150 cpu thats on a par, you're stuffed, either you make a loss to lower the price, or release another line of cheaper stuff. The fact is, very few people are goin to be buying a £600 cpu at this time are they. I think AMD will be fine with their new systems, and when the AM3 comes out in Q1/2 09 i think it could be even closer to the i7, which the phenom 2 is already matching in games.

and to AMDfangirl, you're clearly a gaming purest, who plays for the gameplay not the pretty pictures, which most people dont do anymore.

 

[rangers]

i say stick with what you've got, centering your life around the latest card from ATI/Nvidia or the latest CPU is a sorry and shallow existence

 

[spearhead]

good to see some results. however i dont care much for I7 at this point its way to expansive for my buget. even a bare system would cost you a pain in your wallet not even to mention the need of stuff like a tft monitor speakers and a keyboard ddr3 and its motherboard not even to mention its barley a 20% faster then phenom II. it simply dousn't justify the cost in my opinion. phenom II delivers what it should an affordable platform with a speed comparable to the competition. i hope its price will go down atleast €50-100 before 2nd Q 2009 then it has a good chance to become part of my next system. it would make a nice replacement for my old pentium 4 3ghz 2gb ram and geforce 6800 ultra system.
i dont care much about intel or amd i just want to build a system that offers a great gaming experience for an affordable price.
we shall see what 2nd Q 2009 has to offer.

 

[keithlm]

But I don't agree with some things you stated, Jimmy. The high-end doesn't matter that much for both AMD and Intel if not for the "halo effect", since it's an almost irrelevant part of their profits.

I've been saying that for a year. (He won't listen now any more than he has in the past.)

In truth the main purpose for these high-end parts is to be given away to reviewers to pump up the reputation for the midrange parts. It is unlikely that Intel makes enough money on the high end chips that actually ARE sold at full price to pay for the ones they give away.

But apparently AMD is going to die if they don't come out with high-end parts they can give to reviewers. (Or perhaps they're smarter than the average forum poster.)

 

[B-Unit]

A couple of things...

@amdfangirl, Im glad that integrated graphics and underclocked/undervolted CPUs meet your needs. However, you are the minority (read: one person) who frequents this fourm that applies to. Most of us are just like custom car modder/builders, its all about e-peen and top performance. The reasons vary, some to have top level performance for 1/3 the price, others because they are driven to see what their little piece of silicon can do.

EDIT: I forgot my big finish. Just because it is 'unnecessary stuff' to you doesn't mean it has the same designation for everyone else. Some of us enjoy Crysis for more than the visuals (Although being able to turn up the eye candy is nice )

Next, @baldinie, it costs exactly the same to make an E8600 as it does an E5200, perhaps a bit more for the E5200 by the time youve tested and then disabled part of the cache. All processors come from the same wafers which are produced on the same machine. Its not like they say 'OK, today were gonna make a batch of Celerons' The Celerons come from Core2 dies that couldnt make the cut as Core2 or Pentium Dual-Core. Its a process of the best of the batch are top end, and the rest fall in according to their abilities.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Its like a crop. In certain acres on the farm, your yield will be better, wheres in others, a bit thinner, or, like eggs. Size does make a difference when selling and buying eggs, as the larger ones gets premium pricing, yet, it cost the same for all of them.
From the Farm Aid Chronicles heheh

 

[B-Unit]

WHOO!!!! Im an old hand!!!

O and +1 for the farm analogy JDJ. (I grew up on one BTW)

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Old "farm" hand? heheh

 

[B-Unit]

Lol, how did I miss that one?

 

[WR]

In truth the main purpose for these high-end parts is to be given away to reviewers to pump up the reputation for the midrange parts. It is unlikely that Intel makes enough money on the high end chips that actually ARE sold at full price to pay for the ones they give away.

For Intel I would say the purpose is evenly split between drumming up reputation and making money.

They probably "give away" no more than 1000 EE's, if you count all the ES's. They sell 10,000 EE's easily and probably many times that over the product's life cycle.

Since it costs the same to produce an EE as a midrange homologue, the margin is very high. One EE sold could really pay for several giveaways.

By the second stepping, they could probably price all the EE's at midrange and upgrade almost all of the midrange line to EE speeds and still keep up with demand and make money. But they don't do that because the tiered pricing structure somehow makes them more money than flat pricing. For the consumers, we get shafted on stock speeds for the money, though overclocking takes most of that back.

For AMD, the lack of an FX line no doubt hurts their profits directly. While few FX were typically sold, margins were very high. But notice what AMD is doing with Phenom II? They're performing overclocking demos despite not releasing an FX part. They're pumping up reputation for their midrange - exactly the purpose you stated - without having the performance crown.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

And thats been the main point between P1 and C2D. The performance wasnt completely dominating, its been the ocing (here at Toms, and elsewhere) and the stock clocks. Add in the slight clock for clock advantages Intel has had over AMD, and its bargain basement pricing for AMD, just to move product, all the while, losing marketshare. Its finally changed, as the 940 competes fairly with the 9550 price/perf wise, where theyve never had that until now, and itll truly be a price/perf competition now, and yields are sure to be better, and no more immersion costs for setup, now just dividends from it. Its better, hopefully enough

 

[roofus]

+1 jaydee

 

[spearhead]

i agree on that jaydeejohn pehnom II gives good competition for its price. i hope to see some overclock benchmarks from both the 920 and 940 soon. i might go for the 920 if it overclocks almost the same. for its price it a bargain compared to q9450 and q9550. im still thinking about what motherboard to choose my choice fel between Asus M3A78-T and GA-MA790GP-DS4H. the main diffrence is asus has express gate which is a very nice feature in my opinion and overall more features and gigabyte has a dual bios heatpipes and 8 pin power connector on near the voltage regulators asus has a 4 pin connector on that place. so what is better?