Socket AM3: AMD's Phenom II Gets DDR3

[Linux4geeks]

Core i7 is the top CPU right now, there were some problems with the gaming benchmarks here obviously... And for the e8500 getting a faster time in some programs is as they said because the program was not optimised for multi threaded and/or multi core CPUs, so the 8500 at 3.15ghz runs better than an i7 at 2.66ghz. If you clocked them the same the scores should be close for this program.
I hope AMD comes out with something as powerful as the i7, or like an i7 with 8 cores/16 threads, intel needs hot competition!
For now, its i7 FTW in the fastest CPU race!

 

[bounty]

Here is something interesting to chew on while looking at 920 crysis scores.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-Core-i7-Nehalem,2057-25.html

Also, when doing a review like this, please at least include 1 lower res (like 1680x1050 or lower) test to actually compare CPU's instead of just showing us that games can be GPU limited. Thanks!

 

[bounty]

It may just be a settings thing, high v.s. low etc. but it seems worth investigating.

 

[Lowdown]

Thanks for posting this article. Its interesting to see some of the new stuff from AMD. I know Intel is the big dog but I hope you continue to keep up with AMD. Its good to have compitition, if AMD left the processor business it would hurt the consumer world.

 

[chaohsiangchen]

[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]After building the system up, breaking it down, building it up again and re-running all of the i7 920 tests, the gaming scores came out the same. We questioned Nvidia on its latest drivers, but everything looked normal to them. It didn't seem to be a configuration problem--the i7 still dominated in the productivity-oriented benchmarks.[/citation]

In that case, could you guys use 4870x2 to do gaming test again?

 

[Linux4geeks]

Really, the GTX 280 is a top end card, actually the best single GPU chip avaliable. They could use a 4870 X2/GTX 295 if the tests were that badly GPU bound... don't know if it is worth it though. It'd be interesting to try!

 

[squatchman]

With that vantage GPU score to be so abnormally below the rest of the pack for i7, I'm surprised that you even kept it in the benchmarks. I suppose getting the article out is the most important thing though. Maybe the motherboard was mis-configured somehow?

Like Bounty said you really just proved that high resolution gaming puts the burden on the GPU rather than the CPU and that i7 destroys other processors.

 

[marraco]

Congratulations for cutting the Phenom II X4 940 pins!!!

Although you got no success, you gave us, the readers, very valuable information.

Thanks, dudes. You rocks!

 

[PrangeWay]

"Intel's Core i7 920 needs to be overclocked in order to serve its purpose in a gaming machine. Here we see it again slowing things down versus AMD's lineup"

As someone who just built a i7 920 system. This is common sense. The stock i7 920 is not that great of a gaming systme. Does some cool things fast (like turning my movies into files for my ipod quickly) but gaming fps were far, far behind the P2 940 OC system. Once you OC it it's good, but stock it struggles, but anything under 3.4 or so is gonna.

 

[marraco]

Is disappointing that we can't have faster AM3 chips. Also disappointing that AM3 does not support triple channel (Why not quad channel?).

If AMD plans to restrain consumers of buying i7 until it liberates the faster AM3 chips, is doing a good work on me, I keeps waiting.

On other side, i7 benchmarks are unfair when does not include both hyper threading activated and deactivated. Sometimes it does a huge difference.

Also, i7 Shines on SLI/Crossfire setups, and I don't expect SLI capable AM3 motherboards, and even less simultaneous SLI AND Crossfire support.

Since GPU are really important to me, I don't want to be corseted to one GPU vendor, because this year GPU can be really good and cheap, and -if I conserve my job- I want to be capable to buy the best.

 

[falchard]

Its nice to know my view that DDR3 was still a year off was actually right when I made the decision to go with an AM2+ board then wait for an AM3 board.

 

[Linux4geeks]

I could run the i7 920 at 3.6ghz on the stock cooler for a long time anyhow, it'd bench 3.8ghz... its not hard to OC it guys!

 

[justinmcg67]

[citation][nom]jameskangster[/nom]Ok, I must be missing something here. I compared the AM3, AM2+ reviews from Tom's Hardware and Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] spx?i=3512), and the results seem to contradict each other specifically relating to the game benchmarks. I understand there are subtle differences in the configuration setup, but i7 performs not so favorably according to Tom's Hardware's benchmarks, whereas at Anandtech's review, it pretty much stays on top in every benchmark.[/citation]


Was wondering the same thing...

 

[ravenware]

Solid results. AMD is really starting to to tease the dog on the other side of the fence.

I would like to see their FX series of processors comeback and then when can really so what AMD and Intel have to offer.

 

[kknd1967]

If there is something questionable, you should leave that benchmark out of the chart, instead of leaving it in and making misleading conclusions based on that. Or at least make a note on that problem.

Everyone who ever touched 3DMark knows GPU score would remain about the same for the same video card.

But thanks for confirming AM2+ chip does not work on AM3 socket I know that for a while and this told me AMD is not hiding any "pin breaking secret" from the public, just for the sake of hoaxing unecessary upgrade. If it turned out to be the opposite, you would make THG shine and AMD sink



[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]After building the system up, breaking it down, building it up again and re-running all of the i7 920 tests, the gaming scores came out the same. We questioned Nvidia on its latest drivers, but everything looked normal to them. It didn't seem to be a configuration problem--the i7 still dominated in the productivity-oriented benchmarks.[/citation]

 

[wdmso]

You all love benchmarks here's one There have been 381 reviews of the i7 920 1st post was 11-18-08 the X4 940 has 292 reviews 1st post was 1-9-08
the i7 had 1.5 months head start on AMD draw your own conclusion

 

[wdmso]

[citation][nom]wdmso[/nom]You all love benchmarks here's one There have been 381 reviews of the i7 920 1st post was 11-18-08 the X4 940 has 292 reviews 1st post was 1-9-08the i7 had 1.5 months head start on AMD draw your own conclusion[/citation]
via the egg

 

[cruiseoveride]

weird results

 

[ARCHER0915]

DDR3 shows no real advantages for amd at this point maybe after they ramp up the clocks but as an upgrade it is a waste if you have an am2+ board

 

[rdawise]

Ok unforunately for the author he didn't say that Intel is still the God of all CPUs so he has come under fire...for shame. Listen guys if you find their results so question why don't you run out, run your on benchmark test on a similar setup, then post. Stop the fan boyism and read the article for a minute. When you get your benchmarks up to contradict, then say something. As for the gentleman who posted the links to different articles, there are some major differences that you are neglecting. From both articles they used resolutions that were lower than 1680. THG bottom was 1920. Also, look anandtech's memory timimngs versus THG again different. Also different mobos on anandtech. But the biggest difference I think neglected here is the fact that THG was the only one (stated at least) that used an AM3 mobo versus the AM2. Could those be the reasons you see differences...I would be inclined to think so. Anyone here have a AM3 mobo and a PII that can post benchies that can negate these listed here? I thought not. Chris great article, sorry for some of our peers here.

 

[da bahstid]

Anyone know offhand if AMD is planning to revise their 45nm architecture anytime soon? Between this recent die-shrink/overclocking success, the fact that AM2+/AM3 technically already has most of the features of i7 and the rumor about them bringing back the FX badge, I just figure a serious "tock" from AMD should put them comfortably ahead of Core 2 and maybe even legitimately hang with i7.

If on the other hand "FX" is just going to be Phenom II clocked at 3.6GHz...well my 940BE is already there on stock voltage. The pieces seem to be there for AMD to come out with something special...so is it gonna happen or what?

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]hoodsax[/nom]"So, using a mechanical pencil, we bent the two offending pins back and forth until they snapped off. The chip now fit into our AM3 test platform, albeit not flush due to the metal nubs where each pin broke."This would have been amazing if it had worked and might have redeemed THG (a little) if it had. Although, it didn't, so it is we-tall-did that you did this and you shouldn't have even mentioned it.[/citation]
I think it's brilliant information to mention that it did infact not work. There are ther people out there who might be inclined to try the same, and now they know it'd be a waste of time and hardware. But the most interesting part about it imo was that the cpu still ran in the old socket.

[citation][nom]kknd1967[/nom]I really have to post again after reading all the gaming benchmarks. Dear Chris, unless you are doing internship at THG, please learn to do a reasonable benchmark. Particularly look at gaming performance compared to other sites such as Anandtech. If you could not justify your numbers, you have to rethink what you did wrong.[/citation]
Mate, he can justify his numbers. He's not some apprentice randomly posting stuff on inquier! I'm sure if he posts, or defends numbers posted here he's genuinely convinced those numbers are correct. Doesn't exclude the possibility of error, but if there are any errors they're honestly made, and not bought/intentional.

[citation][nom]squatchman[/nom]With that vantage GPU score to be so abnormally below the rest of the pack for i7, I'm surprised that you even kept it in the benchmarks. I suppose getting the article out is the most important thing though. Maybe the motherboard was mis-configured somehow?Like Bounty said you really just proved that high resolution gaming puts the burden on the GPU rather than the CPU and that i7 destroys other processors.[/citation]
So you want THG to remove benchmarks where the results are not satisfactory? You chinese, or working as mod on apple's forum?

[citation][nom]marraco[/nom]Is disappointing that we can't have faster AM3 chips. Also disappointing that AM3 does not support triple channel (Why not quad channel?).If AMD plans to restrain consumers of buying i7 until it liberates the faster AM3 chips, is doing a good work on me, I keeps waiting.On other side, i7 benchmarks are unfair when does not include both hyper threading activated and deactivated. Sometimes it does a huge difference.Also, i7 Shines on SLI/Crossfire setups, and I don't expect SLI capable AM3 motherboards, and even less simultaneous SLI AND Crossfire support.Since GPU are really important to me, I don't want to be corseted to one GPU vendor, because this year GPU can be really good and cheap, and -if I conserve my job- I want to be capable to buy the best.[/citation]
I7 has nothing to do with crossfire and sli. That's the x58 chipset. And there's no reason why that chipset is eternally going to be the only one available which runs I7 cpu's. I'd have liked the phenom 2 to support quadchannel ddr2 & ddr3 memory myself too though, but I suppose they couldn't make that big changes to their memory controller without breaking compatibility with old platforms.

[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]I have a now 2 year old EVGA SLI 590 motherboard Socket AM2. Will the new Phenom 2 CPU just pop right in and work? I know it wont have the integrated support without the AM2+ and AM3 boards have but would it still work I wonder?[/citation]
You'd have to ask evga about that. Check if the processor is in the cpu support list, and if not ask them via the web form if it'll work.

 

[apache_lives]

heh that E8500 stayed up there dam well, why didnt we see a Q9xxx chip?

As for that Intel i7 920: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3512&p=9 - its ontop in Anandtech's benchmarks? and they even show the 9 series intel Core 2's

THG = AMD biased?????? Or Anandtech = Intel biased???? WTF is going on?


I still think that the Intel platform is the better choice - hyperthreading will give that more fresh response feel, fed by 50% more memory bandwidth (more cores later, plenty of memory+bandwidth for it) and newer games and software using 4+ cores will be kept happy by 8 threads total.

I think the longer the Intel is on the market the better the benchmarks will get once those HT threads get used properly - the advantage will widen the gap.

 

[apache_lives]

And as for the AMD FX coming back - id want to see it as the Intel defeater if anything, because to most of us, they were a monster chip that towered over Intel at the time, to release an AMD FX that lost to an average high end Intel cpu would dirty the FX name and put it with Intel Extreme Edition - uch!

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]THG = AMD biased?????? Or Anandtech = Intel biased????[/citation]
What about the possibility that neither is biased, and they simple got different results by doing things differently, or on different hardware?
Also most of those sites are using engineering samples, and these are not nessecarily similar to each other, or to retail versions. So there is always room for deviations.