First Phenom II review + New review 26th

[ajaidevsingh]

http://my.ocworkbench.com/2008...henom_II_X4-info-1.htm

If this is true i will upgrade from q6600 to PhII asa i have money

Edit:- After i went through the whole review it seems that it can actually kill the i7 in some game and stay almost equal in others.

Also since the i7 is at a 3Ghz plane same as the PhII 940 that would mean it was basically CLK to CLK comparison.

After some experience with an i7 920 i can say that with an ULTRA 120 the sweet spot for the i7 was at 3.6Ghz and according to this review the sweet spot for the PhII 940 is at 3.8Ghz "But idk which cooler they used"

This is not a bad processor at all now the only question that arises is should i pre order this this or wait for the PhII 945 with DDR3??



EDIT NEW REVIEW:- http://66.102.9.104/translate_...lp9EHXNNndr9jMVUF3awdA

mAYBE A GoOd sItE tHis tImE

Also i am selling my old am2 m/b "No point in keeping ddr2" and waiting for either the 790/8xx + 925 combo or P55 + i5 combo.... When will i5 be launched again???


Also on another note these two reviews seems real they both complement each other.. Just see Si Sandra numbers, etc...

 

[TidusZ]

on a sidenote, I could have programmed better html for a webpage when I was 11. if I was a grade 9 computers teacher marking that webpage I would give it an overall mark of 68%, and that would be lenient.

I couldn't even finish reading it, was too painful of an experience. Let me know when Anandtech posts a readable review.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I read this early this morning. Could you link to were PII kills IC7 in games. I MISSED that!

Also your aware as most are that IC7 getts faster with more GPU power . The PII is a nice little cpu that O/C well. But its not even close to a match for IC7. PII will have to play against Penryn . IC7 is years ahead.

 

[ajaidevsingh]

http://my.ocworkbench.com/2008...planet-benchmark-6.htm


On the other hand, the Intel Core i7 940 scored Snow 51 and Cave 68, just 2 fps slower than the Phenom II X4. Killed by 2 FPS is still a kill ya i know its not much but its good news for people who are thinking of getting either a i7 or a PhII


Also they must have made such a blank site to reduce as less bandwidth use as possible but i agree they could have done better.

Yes i do know that in CF and SLi i7 does good it may as well do much better than PhII but if we use this with a single 280 or even a 4870 x2 i don't think there will be that much a difference. For 280 SLi or 4870 x2 CF i also think the i7 is the best choice...!!

 

[SunnyD]

I have a 790GX board. I will be getting a Deneb. That's all there is to it.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Ya. PHII does well . But the gaming benchies were = Other tham Doom . Were IC7 Had a 18% lead. So the OP didn't do well in covering this. Also The IC7 isn't running DDR3 1600. If your going to run the PHII @ 1066. IC7 should be at DDR3/1600 with 7-7-7-7-20 timing . Which clearly it is not. Also was hyper threading on /Off. Also was Turbo on off. I didn't see it stated anyware. But it looks like those features were turned off.

 

[ajaidevsingh]

Ht does not do good on any game so its good that it was off as for Turbo that is cheating so i hope it was off. The ram thing is correct but would that really make a difference in games?? I mean i7 was still ahead of QX9770 in most of the game bench's.

The way i look at it is if i go with AMD thats great for value and due to this fact Intel will reduce their i7 and M/B cost and then i have 2 viable options but paying a bit extra for an i7 platform is quite different than buying a premium for it if you will not use i7's potential to the fullest.

EDIT- Good god, i said Turbo was cheating because they already are using the i7 940 @ 2.93GHz which is almost equal to the clock rate of Phenom II 940 as it is. You get the clock to clock comparison of two different architectures.

If it was a i7 920 with Turbo enabled it would go a max of 2.66+0.20Ghz "2.86 Ghz". I think that Turbo can add upto 200 Mhz maybe i am wrong anyways that clock rate would be slower to the i7 940 without turbo but if turbo is enabled in an i7 940 you could reach speeds of 3.13 Ghz which would be faster than Phenoms II clock rate.

 

[JackyP]

Where is the review? Somehow I only see text describing some GPU-limited games where the phenom set-up is clearly edged out by the competition: it's worse in cinebench, crysis gpu limited, CoJ gpu limited, Lost Planet probably within margin of error, fear gpu limited, 18% slower in doom3, slower in 3d mark 06, slightly faster in vantage.
However, if the review was legit it wouldn't look that bad for phenom II, judging by the real numbers provided (not GPU limited).

 

[Nemesis 1]

. I don't think so . Leaving HT doesn't appear to hurt much. Also Turbo is a part of IC7 so it belongs on . If AMD wants it they can add it. Its not fair to turn turbo off.

Hay we are not NORMS . OK. When a review site does a review . Its for the normal Dell buyers not us.

If you compare a Dell IC7 920 to the PHII 940 its already running faster . So turbo only brings up the speed to within 200mgz.

If both Dells are configured the same . Turbo is ON ON ON . So to the majority of people turning turbo off is cheating. Its nice AT and others do reviews for the CONSUMER. Who buy dells. Not self builds.

If you and I did a comparson . I would not turn off turbo no matter how much you cried foul. Its a feature thats to be used. Not turned off.

Ya I know ya want a clock for clock compare. For us Geeks. But heres my problem . I don't believe you.

If you want a fair comparison add 3 nv cards in the slots and see which CPU has the power to drive 3 GPU's. IC7 owns PHII. So next generation gpus will show this.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: TidusZ
on a sidenote, I could have programmed better html for a webpage when I was 11. if I was a grade 9 computers teacher marking that webpage I would give it an overall mark of 68%, and that would be lenient.

I couldn't even finish reading it, was too painful of an experience. Let me know when Anandtech posts a readable review.

Have you seen anything yet that comes close to looking professional review of PHII. No isn't released yet. Maybe if the early release happens will see some real reviews soon.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: ajaidevsingh
as for Turbo that is cheating so i hope it was off

Why is it cheating?

If you buy an i7 940 does it not come with Turbo as a paid-for feature?

Is it cheating for Intel to use triple-channel memory versus AMD's dual-channel too?

Is it cheating for Intel to have an 8MB L3$ instead of 6MB?

Was it cheating for AMD to have an IMC in past bench comparisons?

If a chip does what you paid for it to do and you want to compare what two chips can do for you then why would you want to artificially limit the capability of one chip by crippling it and selectively turning off features that were engineered to deliver performance increases in the first place?

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I read this early this morning. Could you link to were PII kills IC7 in games. I MISSED that!

Also your aware as most are that IC7 getts faster with more GPU power . The PII is a nice little cpu that O/C well. But its not even close to a match for IC7. PII will have to play against Penryn . IC7 is years ahead.

However, they are also in completely different price ranges.
Assuming the £190 price for the Phenom II 920 is what we see retail, the i7 920 (2.66GHz) goes for £230, while the i7 940 is more like £450.

So while the Phenom II may perform worse than Core i7's, it's also cheaper both on a per-CPU basis, and on a per-platform basis (cheaper motherboards, cheaper RAM currently).

For comparison to Core 2 Quad, the Q6600 is about £150 and the Q9450 is about £250.

So it's:
Q6600 £150
Phenom II 920 £190 (approx)
Phenom II 940 £220 (approx)
Core i7 920 £230
Core 2 Quad Q9450 £250
Core i7 940 £450

Which means that overall the Phenom II may be a reasonable choice of product, since really it's competing with slower C2Q's than the 3.2GHz one used in this "test", assuming that the numbers are anywhere close to accurate.
PII will have to compete against Lynnfield (?) i.e. the lower cost dual channel version of Core i7.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: ajaidevsingh
Ht does not do good on any game so its good that it was off as for Turbo that is cheating so i hope it was off. The ram thing is correct but would that really make a difference in games?? I mean i7 was still ahead of QX9770 in most of the game bench's.

The way i look at it is if i go with AMD thats great for value and due to this fact Intel will reduce their i7 and M/B cost and then i have 2 viable options but paying a bit extra for an i7 platform is quite different than buying a premium for it if you will not use i7's potential to the fullest.

So tell me. What advantage does DDR3 have over DDRII If their is no bottleneck. I keep hereing 5% increase for PHII with DDR3 . I am taking bets on this 5% increase on the desktop. Maybe 2% if your lucky.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
I read this early this morning. Could you link to were PII kills IC7 in games. I MISSED that!

Also your aware as most are that IC7 getts faster with more GPU power . The PII is a nice little cpu that O/C well. But its not even close to a match for IC7. PII will have to play against Penryn . IC7 is years ahead.

However, they are also in completely different price ranges.
Assuming the £190 price for the Phenom II 920 is what we see retail, the i7 920 (2.66GHz) goes for £230, while the i7 940 is more like £450.

So while the Phenom II may perform worse than Core i7's, it's also cheaper both on a per-CPU basis, and on a per-platform basis (cheaper motherboards, cheaper RAM currently).

For comparison to Core 2 Quad, the Q6600 is about £150 and the Q9450 is about £250.

So it's:
Q6600 £150
Phenom II 920 £190 (approx)
Phenom II 940 £220 (approx)
Core i7 920 £230
Core 2 Quad Q9450 £250
Core i7 940 £450

Which means that overall the Phenom II may be a reasonable choice of product, since really it's competing with slower C2Q's than the 3.2GHz one used in this "test", assuming that the numbers are anywhere close to accurate.
PII will have to compete against Lynnfield (?) i.e. the lower cost dual channel version of Core i7.

Yep it is cheaper and ALL around alot slower. On the O/Cs A few guys are getting 4.4GHz on waterIC7. Until we see real reviews of PHII O/C its not a done deal. Also by your reasoning . O/Cs for both IC7 & PHII must be done at same voltage . The lowewr V. to do the samr GHz. Is winner. Does that sound fair?

My daughter just order 10 of each of these parts. + More.

IC7 920 $299
Memory DDR3 3x2mb. $239/
Motherboard $398
GPU $539.
$ 1475 The first meroms we built were = in cost.

 

[Keysplayr]

Wow. A whole lot of talk with a whole lot of gaping holes in the comments. Just wait guys. Wait for AT review or another tier 1 review site. Pretend o/c workbench doesn't exist after that "review".

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Wow. A whole lot of talk with a whole lot of gaping holes in the comments. Just wait guys. Wait for AT review or another tier 1 review site. Pretend o/c workbench doesn't exist after that "review".

I agree completely, Its a review from a craptastic website, Who knows if it is real or not? (Or even that it is setup correctly).

Im not satisfied with this review as a whole, lets wait for a GOOD review site.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Agreed Keys . The numbers were seeing are all over the place. Guy @ XS. Is beside himself because of this review . With the PHII scores are way to low so he says.

So its wait and see.

 

[amenx]

What a horrible, poorly presented review. No quick glance charts with the numbers, you have to plow through every sentence to see the results. Didnt even finish it. ocworkbench.com has just been added to my blocklist.

 

[shempf]

all this tells me is that i7 is still the best for my workstation....though these benchmarks mean nothing to me. I guessed as much.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Why is it cheating?

If you buy an i7 940 does it not come with Turbo as a paid-for feature?

intel is cheating because it clocks higher. equalized clockspeed ftw.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Why is it cheating?

If you buy an i7 940 does it not come with Turbo as a paid-for feature?

intel is cheating because it clocks higher. equalized clockspeed ftw.

Don't forget Intel cheats by using HK/MG and that PCU to get superior performance/watt. Not fair!

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Why is it cheating?

If you buy an i7 940 does it not come with Turbo as a paid-for feature?

intel is cheating because it clocks higher. equalized clockspeed ftw.

Yea, those assholes with thier higher clocks! I want my clocks slower!

 

[MarcVenice]

Worst review ever. Testing a CPU at HIGH resolutions, with a SINGLE hd4850? They kidding? Benchmarks differences between qx9770, i7 965 and phenom II 940 weren't even statistically significant.

I wonder what kind of idiots qaulify to recieve ES from intel/amd...

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: ajaidevsingh
as for Turbo that is cheating so i hope it was off

Why is it cheating?

If you buy an i7 940 does it not come with Turbo as a paid-for feature?

Is it cheating for Intel to use triple-channel memory versus AMD's dual-channel too?

Is it cheating for Intel to have an 8MB L3$ instead of 6MB?

Was it cheating for AMD to have an IMC in past bench comparisons?

If a chip does what you paid for it to do and you want to compare what two chips can do for you then why would you want to artificially limit the capability of one chip by crippling it and selectively turning off features that were engineered to deliver performance increases in the first place?

Its cheating because i hate to say this..

but its THE ONLY WAY AMD can even put itself on the board against an i7...

Remember AMD even admits there not going after the crown anymore... So why are you guys trying to make the company go for a goal when there not aiming for it?

This is NOT CHEATING.. its called BETTER HARDWARE associated with people who have larger budgets..

http://i125.photobucket.com/al.../aigomorla/Threads.jpg

 

[Phew]

Someone needs to introduce the concept of the 'bar chart' to the writer of that review.