Official Phenom 2 Review Thread

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Qbah

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: qurious63ss
Not sure why people are comparing P2 940 to Q9400. The direct competitor to the P2 940 is the Q9550, the Q9400 is for the P2 920.

Looking at Newegg the PhII 940 is $274.99. The Q9400 is $269.99.

The Q9550 is $324.99. Maybe that's why.

Price is irrelevant to preformance. The PII 940 is competing with the Q9550 in performance. In that comparason the Q9550 wins.

Isn't it the consumer who determines which CPU compares with which CPU?

Most consumers compare based on price.

That would be my assumption too. You look up one product, check what the competition has in the same price range and select the one that's the fastest (or whatever criteria you base your purchase on).

EDIT: Having written that, I saw reviews comparing the 940 to the Q9300 and both trading blows. Seems about right (in terms of price and performance). Then again you need something more than equal to win a consumer's wallet (what the HD4800 series showed - same performance, a lot cheaper initially).

The Q9550 is faster (double the cache and higher clock than the Q9300). It is more expensive though - however asking 300$ for a quad ain't much. I don't see a reason why one wouldn't spit 50$ more to get it - unless you already have an AM2+ board. Then your obvious choice is the PhII 940

The Q9550 is not going to be $319 forever either. And yes, it is worth $50 extra in performance. Like you said, unless you already have an AM2+ board.

 

[qurious63ss]

Originally posted by: Peter Trend

Originally posted by: qurious63ss
New prices Jan 18th.

Where did you hear that? Sounds good, inevitable and necessary

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=214354

Q9550 for $269 and Q9400 for $219 and the best deal, theQ9650 for $317!!!

 

[Peter Trend]

Originally posted by: qurious63ss

Originally posted by: Peter Trend

Originally posted by: qurious63ss
New prices Jan 18th.

Where did you hear that? Sounds good, inevitable and necessary

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=214354

Q9550 for $269 and Q9400 for $219 and the best deal, theQ9650 for $317!!!

Ah s***, I thought you meant P2 price cut! They will happen one day I would expect, at least by the time AM3 P2 comes out.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Peter Trend

Originally posted by: qurious63ss

Originally posted by: Peter Trend

Originally posted by: qurious63ss
New prices Jan 18th.

Where did you hear that? Sounds good, inevitable and necessary

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=214354

Q9550 for $269 and Q9400 for $219 and the best deal, theQ9650 for $317!!!

Ah s***, I thought you meant P2 price cut! They will happen one day I would expect, at least by the time AM3 P2 comes out.

That's probably when I'll upgrade.

The Q9550 is not going to be $319 forever either. And yes, it is worth $50 extra in performance. Like you said, unless you already have an AM2+ board.

That's a blanket statment. Depending on budget and what you need to do with the processor it may or may not be worth it.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: qurious63ss

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I didn't say it was a scam only misleading and purposefully done.

Here's a fact check for everyone here in case it doesn't click.

1) the PII isn't a magic chip that brings AMD to Intel's level.
2) The PII is and always will be slower than i7, and hopefully you understand that the i7 isn't their competition with this chip.
3) the PII is actually slower overall than a C2Q which has been available for months, sometimes not by a large margin but slower is still slower any way you slice it.
4) The names chosen for the PII were deliberately done so to mislead people into buying them thinking they were getting i7 performance for hundreds less. Nothing more and nothing less in my view.

That's how it is. You can argue that competition is good and blah blah but the simple fact still remains, AMD is behind Intel. Months behind, perhaps years...i'm not an engineer so I cannot say.

I agree with you, but you should point out that the Phenom 2 is a slightly better value than a C2Q when you take everything into account. The Phenom 2 920 in particular is a very good value and would be hard to beat with a C2Q at the same pricepoint.

Wrong. The Phenom 2 is not a better value. The only people that should consider upgrading to P2 is someone who already owns an AM2+ system. If you own an Intel 775 system then switching to P2 is stupid. If you are in the market for a new systems then you have a whole bunch of variables that can sway you back and forth but there is no definitive answer that makes P2 a better value then C2Q.

Right, and time will tell how far Intel is willing to drop prices on their C2Qs which may further push the PII out of the running for many people.

There is no denying that the P2 is cheaper than and performs better than the C2Q chips within their respective price markets. They also generally overclock better. Plus there is the fact that AMD platform is cheaper, and you don't need to worry about DDR3 or a $300 motherboard.

I can deny it all I want, because it is not true. I ran a C2Q just fine without DDR3, and with a $110 mobo.

Yes, I just stability tested my Q9550 C1 with this old P35 board in my sig at 3.8Ghz. 448x8.5 @ 1.38v in bios (1.35v idle and 1.29v load). The PII is cheaper only for those who are upgrading AM2+ boards. Everyone else will get better performance from Intel parts, and like I said...we will see how low intel cuts prices.

I am willing to bet that a DDR2 based P45 or x38/x48 board running a C2Q will still outpace a PII. Memory speed doesn't play that great a role in the performance of the LGA775 chips.

The core generation cpu's of intel always have been memory bandwidth starved. That is why Intel introduced the cpu's with so much cache. It is also the reason why core i7 has an integrated memory controller. Because those core's are so fast they need every little bit of bandwidth they can get. When originally the core architecture was designed Intel already knew it loved memory bandwidth. See for example this page about the architecture of the core. Penryn is the second generation core.

Memory disambiguation: the data stream version of speculative execution

DDR3 =/= uber gains. I don't care what people say, the numbers speak for themselves.

Lets not beat around the bush...AMD CPUs are still slower than Intel CPUs.

Depends which cpu you mean. What i am seriously interested in is where the limitation lie in the amd cpu Ph2. I wonder what happens with the Ph2 when the bandwidth of this cpu also increases by going to DDR3 with the AM3 socket. I am sure the Ph2 has some bottlenecks hidden in it's architecture and i feel the most obvious one is the low clock of the IMC and the L3 cache. When compared the i7 has much higher uncore clocks. If AMD can scale the "uncore" clocks up of phenom2 i am sure we can see some increase in performance.

The core i7 maybe the fastest but the price range is a lot different. For the enthusiast only the core i7 is good enough but for most people and that includes me too the Ph2 is plain good.

 

[spdfreak]

Originally posted by: vj8usa
Wow, that HOCP review is so stupid it isn't even funny.

From the review:
"Now while some of you will whine loudly, ?That?s not fair! That flagship Core i7 is $1000!? Well you people just need to shut the hell up and go have a drink. You are already unreasonable, so a little alcohol won?t hurt you in the least."

They're comparing a QX9770 and an i7 965 to the PII 940.

Both the intel CPUs they used are over $1000 on Newegg, while the AMD CPU is $275.

It's well known that Kyle and Steve like to umm, drink... a lot. I'm guessing he might have had a few when he did this review. Just a guess. So maybe they should just start a site that reviews beer wine and liquor and leaves rational hardware reviews to other sites.

The beauty of the PII's is that they are going to be a very good midrange solution that uses cheap MB's and cheap DDR2. The vast majority of people cannot use even 1/4 of the power their current computers have, so for most, the argument is meaningless. When the prices drop after the initial launch, PII will do fine. Even for myself, the only thing I need a crazy fast rig for is video rendering- and I do that seldom and just let it run overnight. (Q6600). So I guess there are people that need the absolute fastest, but they already know that they are buying a 1000.00 cpu and not one of the PII's. Since it is competitive with the C2D, I wouldn't have any reservation buying one. It all comes down to competitive pricing at this point and AMD has always been good at that.

 

[Martimus]

What frustrates me is that no-one seemed to do an apples to apples review.

I read through a few reviews and thought I had a good idea of where the various chips performed in comparison to each other, then I started to notice that almost every review website used an X48 MB and DDR3 RAM for their C2D quads.

First of all, what kind of idiot would buy a C2D Quad with DDR3 memory, when they could get a higher performing i7 for the same price with similar priced memory and MB. It was somewhat a of worthless test as not many would do that now (unless they alread had the components).

Most of all though, they could have easily made it a more scientific study by giving both systems the exact same memory. It would help if both the C2D and PhII systems had similar priced MB's as well. If these things were done, then it would have been a very usefull review for me, but alas even Anandtech didn't do this.

I have come away not really knowing whether the Phenom II is a competitor to the Q9400, Q9450, or the Q9550 just due to the lack of a truly controlled testing environment. I am actually upset about this, as not one site seemed to even attempt to control the variables that were available to them.

Having spent time as a test engineer, I can't believe that other professionals would do this. There must be a reason for doing this, or it wouldn't be so widespread. I just can't figure out what the reason is.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Martimus
Having spent time as a test engineer, I can't believe that other professionals would do this. There must be a reason for doing this, or it wouldn't be so widespread. I just can't figure out what the reason is.

I understand your frustration and feel your pain. It may be complete crap but I like to tell myself these guys are not educated/experienced engineers (thus explaining lack of rigor in test methods) and even if they were then they are still giving us exactly what we paid for...they like themselves some page hits and ad impressions.

Now why must they ALL conduct themselves as seemingly uneducated/inexperienced practitioners of the scientific method? That may come down to simple laziness...we all worked with a Wally at some point in our careers, maybe freebie review sites is where they just sorta collect en masse over time?

Spinodal decomposition isn't just for metals.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Martimus
What frustrates me is that no-one seemed to do an apples to apples review.

I read through a few reviews and thought I had a good idea of where the various chips performed in comparison to each other, then I started to notice that almost every review website used an X48 MB and DDR3 RAM for their C2D quads.

First of all, what kind of idiot would buy a C2D Quad with DDR3 memory, when they could get a higher performing i7 for the same price with similar priced memory and MB. It was somewhat a of worthless test as not many would do that now (unless they alread had the components).

Most of all though, they could have easily made it a more scientific study by giving both systems the exact same memory. It would help if both the C2D and PhII systems had similar priced MB's as well. If these things were done, then it would have been a very usefull review for me, but alas even Anandtech didn't do this.

I have come away not really knowing whether the Phenom II is a competitor to the Q9400, Q9450, or the Q9550 just due to the lack of a truly controlled testing environment. I am actually upset about this, as not one site seemed to even attempt to control the variables that were available to them.

Having spent time as a test engineer, I can't believe that other professionals would do this. There must be a reason for doing this, or it wouldn't be so widespread. I just can't figure out what the reason is.

You are absolutely right! I strongly believe the reason is that most of the sites receive samples for testing, and the motherboard and RAM received from the blue camp were X48 / DDR3

I think some sites DID test the C2Q using DDR2. Let me check tech report and be back....



Alex

Edit: Tech report used DDR3 / X48 for the C2Q... free samples obviously

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: Martimus
What frustrates me is that no-one seemed to do an apples to apples review.

I read through a few reviews and thought I had a good idea of where the various chips performed in comparison to each other, then I started to notice that almost every review website used an X48 MB and DDR3 RAM for their C2D quads.

First of all, what kind of idiot would buy a C2D Quad with DDR3 memory, when they could get a higher performing i7 for the same price with similar priced memory and MB. It was somewhat a of worthless test as not many would do that now (unless they alread had the components).

Most of all though, they could have easily made it a more scientific study by giving both systems the exact same memory. It would help if both the C2D and PhII systems had similar priced MB's as well. If these things were done, then it would have been a very usefull review for me, but alas even Anandtech didn't do this.

I have come away not really knowing whether the Phenom II is a competitor to the Q9400, Q9450, or the Q9550 just due to the lack of a truly controlled testing environment. I am actually upset about this, as not one site seemed to even attempt to control the variables that were available to them.

Having spent time as a test engineer, I can't believe that other professionals would do this. There must be a reason for doing this, or it wouldn't be so widespread. I just can't figure out what the reason is.

You are absolutely right! I strongly believe the reason is that most of the sites receive samples for testing, and the motherboard and RAM received from the blue camp were X48 / DDR3

I think some sites DID test the C2Q using DDR2. Let me check tech report and be back....



Alex

Edit: Tech report used DDR3 / X48 for the C2Q... free samples obviously

I'm glad everyone is so blind that they really believe Intel sent free mobos and memory :roll:

Let me tell you what happened. They tested using the current High end components for either configuration.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: qurious63ss

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I didn't say it was a scam only misleading and purposefully done.

Here's a fact check for everyone here in case it doesn't click.

1) the PII isn't a magic chip that brings AMD to Intel's level.
2) The PII is and always will be slower than i7, and hopefully you understand that the i7 isn't their competition with this chip.
3) the PII is actually slower overall than a C2Q which has been available for months, sometimes not by a large margin but slower is still slower any way you slice it.
4) The names chosen for the PII were deliberately done so to mislead people into buying them thinking they were getting i7 performance for hundreds less. Nothing more and nothing less in my view.

That's how it is. You can argue that competition is good and blah blah but the simple fact still remains, AMD is behind Intel. Months behind, perhaps years...i'm not an engineer so I cannot say.

I agree with you, but you should point out that the Phenom 2 is a slightly better value than a C2Q when you take everything into account. The Phenom 2 920 in particular is a very good value and would be hard to beat with a C2Q at the same pricepoint.

Wrong. The Phenom 2 is not a better value. The only people that should consider upgrading to P2 is someone who already owns an AM2+ system. If you own an Intel 775 system then switching to P2 is stupid. If you are in the market for a new systems then you have a whole bunch of variables that can sway you back and forth but there is no definitive answer that makes P2 a better value then C2Q.

Right, and time will tell how far Intel is willing to drop prices on their C2Qs which may further push the PII out of the running for many people.

There is no denying that the P2 is cheaper than and performs better than the C2Q chips within their respective price markets. They also generally overclock better. Plus there is the fact that AMD platform is cheaper, and you don't need to worry about DDR3 or a $300 motherboard.

I can deny it all I want, because it is not true. I ran a C2Q just fine without DDR3, and with a $110 mobo.

Yes, I just stability tested my Q9550 C1 with this old P35 board in my sig at 3.8Ghz. 448x8.5 @ 1.38v in bios (1.35v idle and 1.29v load). The PII is cheaper only for those who are upgrading AM2+ boards. Everyone else will get better performance from Intel parts, and like I said...we will see how low intel cuts prices.

I am willing to bet that a DDR2 based P45 or x38/x48 board running a C2Q will still outpace a PII. Memory speed doesn't play that great a role in the performance of the LGA775 chips.

The core generation cpu's of intel always have been memory bandwidth starved. That is why Intel introduced the cpu's with so much cache. It is also the reason why core i7 has an integrated memory controller. Because those core's are so fast they need every little bit of bandwidth they can get. When originally the core architecture was designed Intel already knew it loved memory bandwidth. See for example this page about the architecture of the core. Penryn is the second generation core.

Memory disambiguation: the data stream version of speculative execution

DDR3 =/= uber gains. I don't care what people say, the numbers speak for themselves.

Lets not beat around the bush...AMD CPUs are still slower than Intel CPUs.

Depends which cpu you mean. What i am seriously interested in is where the limitation lie in the amd cpu Ph2. I wonder what happens with the Ph2 when the bandwidth of this cpu also increases by going to DDR3 with the AM3 socket. I am sure the Ph2 has some bottlenecks hidden in it's architecture and i feel the most obvious one is the low clock of the IMC and the L3 cache. When compared the i7 has much higher uncore clocks. If AMD can scale the "uncore" clocks up of phenom2 i am sure we can see some increase in performance.

The core i7 maybe the fastest but the price range is a lot different. For the enthusiast only the core i7 is good enough but for most people and that includes me too the Ph2 is plain good.

Plain good but slower than a C2Q clocked comparatively.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: Martimus
What frustrates me is that no-one seemed to do an apples to apples review.

I read through a few reviews and thought I had a good idea of where the various chips performed in comparison to each other, then I started to notice that almost every review website used an X48 MB and DDR3 RAM for their C2D quads.

First of all, what kind of idiot would buy a C2D Quad with DDR3 memory, when they could get a higher performing i7 for the same price with similar priced memory and MB. It was somewhat a of worthless test as not many would do that now (unless they alread had the components).

Most of all though, they could have easily made it a more scientific study by giving both systems the exact same memory. It would help if both the C2D and PhII systems had similar priced MB's as well. If these things were done, then it would have been a very usefull review for me, but alas even Anandtech didn't do this.

I have come away not really knowing whether the Phenom II is a competitor to the Q9400, Q9450, or the Q9550 just due to the lack of a truly controlled testing environment. I am actually upset about this, as not one site seemed to even attempt to control the variables that were available to them.

Having spent time as a test engineer, I can't believe that other professionals would do this. There must be a reason for doing this, or it wouldn't be so widespread. I just can't figure out what the reason is.

You are absolutely right! I strongly believe the reason is that most of the sites receive samples for testing, and the motherboard and RAM received from the blue camp were X48 / DDR3

I think some sites DID test the C2Q using DDR2. Let me check tech report and be back....



Alex

Edit: Tech report used DDR3 / X48 for the C2Q... free samples obviously

Not entirely true but let me expain :

I found that the dual quad extreme Extreme QX9775 3.2 GHz uses FB
DDR2-800. This ram is more expensive.

a qoute from the phoronix site about FB :

FB-DIMMs are designed to bring the best traits from DDR2 memory while combining a new point-to-point serial memory interface. Some of the key benefits for Fully Buffered DIMMs include enhanced reliability, greater bandwidth, improved scalability, and higher capacity per memory channel.

This testsystem is build up using a :

intel DX5400XS motherboard : 599 USD at newegg.
there are 2 cpu's in that test system :
QX9775 : 12MB cache. 3.2Ghz 1549.99 USD at newegg.
QX9775 : 12MB cache. 3.2Ghz 1549.99 USD at newegg.

I google a bit for the Micron ECC DDR2-800
FB-DIMM 2 * 2GB and price found on average 199 USD.


I find it funny this system does not even always win from the Ph2. If you compare the prices. it says it all. The Phenom 2 has a good bang for the buck performance. And i am seriously thinking to wait out longer too see what DDR3 does. If AM3 boost enough performance i might go for AM3 since i will be buying a new system anyway. But even with DDR2 it sure performs good.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: qurious63ss

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I didn't say it was a scam only misleading and purposefully done.

Here's a fact check for everyone here in case it doesn't click.

1) the PII isn't a magic chip that brings AMD to Intel's level.
2) The PII is and always will be slower than i7, and hopefully you understand that the i7 isn't their competition with this chip.
3) the PII is actually slower overall than a C2Q which has been available for months, sometimes not by a large margin but slower is still slower any way you slice it.
4) The names chosen for the PII were deliberately done so to mislead people into buying them thinking they were getting i7 performance for hundreds less. Nothing more and nothing less in my view.

That's how it is. You can argue that competition is good and blah blah but the simple fact still remains, AMD is behind Intel. Months behind, perhaps years...i'm not an engineer so I cannot say.

I agree with you, but you should point out that the Phenom 2 is a slightly better value than a C2Q when you take everything into account. The Phenom 2 920 in particular is a very good value and would be hard to beat with a C2Q at the same pricepoint.

Wrong. The Phenom 2 is not a better value. The only people that should consider upgrading to P2 is someone who already owns an AM2+ system. If you own an Intel 775 system then switching to P2 is stupid. If you are in the market for a new systems then you have a whole bunch of variables that can sway you back and forth but there is no definitive answer that makes P2 a better value then C2Q.

Right, and time will tell how far Intel is willing to drop prices on their C2Qs which may further push the PII out of the running for many people.

There is no denying that the P2 is cheaper than and performs better than the C2Q chips within their respective price markets. They also generally overclock better. Plus there is the fact that AMD platform is cheaper, and you don't need to worry about DDR3 or a $300 motherboard.

I can deny it all I want, because it is not true. I ran a C2Q just fine without DDR3, and with a $110 mobo.

Yes, I just stability tested my Q9550 C1 with this old P35 board in my sig at 3.8Ghz. 448x8.5 @ 1.38v in bios (1.35v idle and 1.29v load). The PII is cheaper only for those who are upgrading AM2+ boards. Everyone else will get better performance from Intel parts, and like I said...we will see how low intel cuts prices.

I am willing to bet that a DDR2 based P45 or x38/x48 board running a C2Q will still outpace a PII. Memory speed doesn't play that great a role in the performance of the LGA775 chips.

The core generation cpu's of intel always have been memory bandwidth starved. That is why Intel introduced the cpu's with so much cache. It is also the reason why core i7 has an integrated memory controller. Because those core's are so fast they need every little bit of bandwidth they can get. When originally the core architecture was designed Intel already knew it loved memory bandwidth. See for example this page about the architecture of the core. Penryn is the second generation core.

Memory disambiguation: the data stream version of speculative execution

DDR3 =/= uber gains. I don't care what people say, the numbers speak for themselves.

Lets not beat around the bush...AMD CPUs are still slower than Intel CPUs.

Depends which cpu you mean. What i am seriously interested in is where the limitation lie in the amd cpu Ph2. I wonder what happens with the Ph2 when the bandwidth of this cpu also increases by going to DDR3 with the AM3 socket. I am sure the Ph2 has some bottlenecks hidden in it's architecture and i feel the most obvious one is the low clock of the IMC and the L3 cache. When compared the i7 has much higher uncore clocks. If AMD can scale the "uncore" clocks up of phenom2 i am sure we can see some increase in performance.

The core i7 maybe the fastest but the price range is a lot different. For the enthusiast only the core i7 is good enough but for most people and that includes me too the Ph2 is plain good.

Plain good but slower than a C2Q clocked comparatively.

Look i don't really mind what you say.
I prefer the Ph2 because overal it provides a platform what i want and those Qx chips don't.

And before i forget the Ph2 has Memory disambiguation too it is only called different and it is more conservative. This is what could be improved too with the Ph2, to be more speculative.

non-speculative memory access re-ordering

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Martimus
Having spent time as a test engineer, I can't believe that other professionals would do this. There must be a reason for doing this, or it wouldn't be so widespread. I just can't figure out what the reason is.

I understand your frustration and feel your pain. It may be complete crap but I like to tell myself these guys are not educated/experienced engineers (thus explaining lack of rigor in test methods) and even if they were then they are still giving us exactly what we paid for...they like themselves some page hits and ad impressions.

Now why must they ALL conduct themselves as seemingly uneducated/inexperienced practitioners of the scientific method? That may come down to simple laziness...we all worked with a Wally at some point in our careers, maybe freebie review sites is where they just sorta collect en masse over time?

Spinodal decomposition isn't just for metals.

I have a question that maybe you can answer.

When thinking of singlethreaded performance versus multithreaded performance. I know Intel optimised the penryns still for single threaded performance. How do these test relate to single threading and multi threading. Also, is it possible that some tests use the newer sse instructions Phenom does not have and AMD is not allowed to implement ?
I am not discussing about fairness but that sure would explain the performance difference together with the memory bandwidth difference.

Do you have any thoughts on that ?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Martimus
Having spent time as a test engineer, I can't believe that other professionals would do this. There must be a reason for doing this, or it wouldn't be so widespread. I just can't figure out what the reason is.

I understand your frustration and feel your pain. It may be complete crap but I like to tell myself these guys are not educated/experienced engineers (thus explaining lack of rigor in test methods) and even if they were then they are still giving us exactly what we paid for...they like themselves some page hits and ad impressions.

Now why must they ALL conduct themselves as seemingly uneducated/inexperienced practitioners of the scientific method? That may come down to simple laziness...we all worked with a Wally at some point in our careers, maybe freebie review sites is where they just sorta collect en masse over time?

Spinodal decomposition isn't just for metals.

I have a question that maybe you can answer.

When thinking of singlethreaded performance versus multithreaded performance. I know Intel optimised the penryns still for single threaded performance. How do these test relate to single threading and multi threading. Also, is it possible that some tests use the newer sse instructions Phenom does not have and AMD is not allowed to implement ?
I am not discussing about fairness but that sure would explain the performance difference together with the memory bandwidth difference.

Do you have any thoughts on that ?

From the reviews I have seen there is essentially no benefit in the extra bandwidth provided by DDR3 over DDR2 or even higher FSB's on DDR2 or DDR3 when discussing the final 45nm 12MB cach iteration of C2Q's.

Once Intel took single-socket desktop systems over the 800MHz FSB (4x200 quad-pumped) and bandwidth over the DDR2-800 realm the only meaningful differences in performance could be seen in synthetic benchmarks (sandra, super-pi, everest, etc).

So my take on the C2Q with DDR3 flap is that the performance is basically identical to what the reviewers would have generated were they to have used DDR2 memory instead of the DDR3.

Here's a home-grown thread looking at the performance impact of higher bandwidth and higher FSB on real-life applications:

Graysky's thread: Memory bandwidth tests

IDC's compiled test results

As for some apps having newer SSE instructions, yes absolutely this happens and most commonly in media apps (encode, render, etc).

 

[William Gaatjes]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Martimus
Having spent time as a test engineer, I can't believe that other professionals would do this. There must be a reason for doing this, or it wouldn't be so widespread. I just can't figure out what the reason is.

I understand your frustration and feel your pain. It may be complete crap but I like to tell myself these guys are not educated/experienced engineers (thus explaining lack of rigor in test methods) and even if they were then they are still giving us exactly what we paid for...they like themselves some page hits and ad impressions.

Now why must they ALL conduct themselves as seemingly uneducated/inexperienced practitioners of the scientific method? That may come down to simple laziness...we all worked with a Wally at some point in our careers, maybe freebie review sites is where they just sorta collect en masse over time?

Spinodal decomposition isn't just for metals.

I have a question that maybe you can answer.

When thinking of singlethreaded performance versus multithreaded performance. I know Intel optimised the penryns still for single threaded performance. How do these test relate to single threading and multi threading. Also, is it possible that some tests use the newer sse instructions Phenom does not have and AMD is not allowed to implement ?
I am not discussing about fairness but that sure would explain the performance difference together with the memory bandwidth difference.

Do you have any thoughts on that ?

From the reviews I have seen there is essentially no benefit in the extra bandwidth provided by DDR3 over DDR2 or even higher FSB's on DDR2 or DDR3 when discussing the final 45nm 12MB cach iteration of C2Q's.

Once Intel took single-socket desktop systems over the 800MHz FSB (4x200 quad-pumped) and bandwidth over the DDR2-800 realm the only meaningful differences in performance could be seen in synthetic benchmarks (sandra, super-pi, everest, etc).

So my take on the C2Q with DDR3 flap is that the performance is basically identical to what the reviewers would have generated were they to have used DDR2 memory instead of the DDR3.

Here's a home-grown thread looking at the performance impact of higher bandwidth and higher FSB on real-life applications:

Graysky's thread: Memory bandwidth tests

IDC's compiled test results

As for some apps having newer SSE instructions, yes absolutely this happens and most commonly in media apps (encode, render, etc).

But that's why the C2Q's have so much cache to hide the FSB bottleneck. And most programs fit fine in the cache. As long as the cpu has enough cache it won't really have to go to memory via the FSB. It all comes to being able to get your data fast. This was shown when the first core came out and took the performance crown back from the K8. When the 4 MB L2 was not enough anymore it's performance dropped down considerably.

And media encoders and renderers are used a lot in performance tests .

When there is more memory bandwidth, is it not possible that the C2Q cannot saturated the memory bus and therefore there is still bandwidth left for the other devices to access main memory ? This could also speed up the entire system. If the cpu cannot hog the memory then other devices can acces the memory more often and not have to wait for the cpu. I am thinking of DMA although it is named differently under pci and pci express.

 

[Cookie Monster]

This maybe abit offtopic, but shouldn't penryn quads count as having only 6MB of L2$ since the total amount of L2$ isnt "shared" by the 2 penryn dies. For intel MCM quads, they communicate via FSB (i.e introduces some serious bottlenecks in some situations) but can say core0,1 access and use core2,3's L2$ or am i understanding this incorrectly?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
This maybe abit offtopic, but shouldn't penryn quads count as having only 6MB of L2$ since the total amount of L2$ isnt "shared" by the 2 penryn dies. For intel MCM quads, they communicate via FSB (i.e introduces some serious bottlenecks in some situations) but can say core0,1 access and use core2,3's L2$ or am i understanding this incorrectly?

Interesting question...seems like IDC territory....

If true, probably for the same reasons this card says it has 2GB of RAM.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
This maybe abit offtopic, but shouldn't penryn quads count as having only 6MB of L2$ since the total amount of L2$ isnt "shared" by the 2 penryn dies. For intel MCM quads, they communicate via FSB (i.e introduces some serious bottlenecks in some situations) but can say core0,1 access and use core2,3's L2$ or am i understanding this incorrectly?

It's true, each wolfdale dual-core chip has a shared 6MB L2$ seen by just the two cores on that die and the data are only accessible via FSB should a thread on another core and another die need to access data on the other die.

core0,1 can access the L2$ on the other chip in that they access data stored there but they cannot address the L2$ in a manner that would make it usable as if it were more L2$ outside its own 6MB L2$. (this is not a mandatory limitation by the way, Intel could have made it work this way albeit with the extra mammoth latency involved but they chose not to)

But counting all 12MB of L2$ is relevant in the sense that it still communicates meaningful data to the consumer. From a technical standpoint they could mislabel it all they want, call it a 12 byte L2$ for all I care, the performance in my apps is all that matters and my apps happen to fit well into the 2x4MB L2$ on Kentsfield so they'll probably fit OK on the shared L3$ of either a PhII or an i7.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: qurious63ss

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I didn't say it was a scam only misleading and purposefully done.

Here's a fact check for everyone here in case it doesn't click.

1) the PII isn't a magic chip that brings AMD to Intel's level.
2) The PII is and always will be slower than i7, and hopefully you understand that the i7 isn't their competition with this chip.
3) the PII is actually slower overall than a C2Q which has been available for months, sometimes not by a large margin but slower is still slower any way you slice it.
4) The names chosen for the PII were deliberately done so to mislead people into buying them thinking they were getting i7 performance for hundreds less. Nothing more and nothing less in my view.

That's how it is. You can argue that competition is good and blah blah but the simple fact still remains, AMD is behind Intel. Months behind, perhaps years...i'm not an engineer so I cannot say.

I agree with you, but you should point out that the Phenom 2 is a slightly better value than a C2Q when you take everything into account. The Phenom 2 920 in particular is a very good value and would be hard to beat with a C2Q at the same pricepoint.

Wrong. The Phenom 2 is not a better value. The only people that should consider upgrading to P2 is someone who already owns an AM2+ system. If you own an Intel 775 system then switching to P2 is stupid. If you are in the market for a new systems then you have a whole bunch of variables that can sway you back and forth but there is no definitive answer that makes P2 a better value then C2Q.

Right, and time will tell how far Intel is willing to drop prices on their C2Qs which may further push the PII out of the running for many people.

There is no denying that the P2 is cheaper than and performs better than the C2Q chips within their respective price markets. They also generally overclock better. Plus there is the fact that AMD platform is cheaper, and you don't need to worry about DDR3 or a $300 motherboard.

I can deny it all I want, because it is not true. I ran a C2Q just fine without DDR3, and with a $110 mobo.

Yes, I just stability tested my Q9550 C1 with this old P35 board in my sig at 3.8Ghz. 448x8.5 @ 1.38v in bios (1.35v idle and 1.29v load). The PII is cheaper only for those who are upgrading AM2+ boards. Everyone else will get better performance from Intel parts, and like I said...we will see how low intel cuts prices.

I am willing to bet that a DDR2 based P45 or x38/x48 board running a C2Q will still outpace a PII. Memory speed doesn't play that great a role in the performance of the LGA775 chips.

The core generation cpu's of intel always have been memory bandwidth starved. That is why Intel introduced the cpu's with so much cache. It is also the reason why core i7 has an integrated memory controller. Because those core's are so fast they need every little bit of bandwidth they can get. When originally the core architecture was designed Intel already knew it loved memory bandwidth. See for example this page about the architecture of the core. Penryn is the second generation core.

Memory disambiguation: the data stream version of speculative execution

DDR3 =/= uber gains. I don't care what people say, the numbers speak for themselves.

Lets not beat around the bush...AMD CPUs are still slower than Intel CPUs.

Depends which cpu you mean. What i am seriously interested in is where the limitation lie in the amd cpu Ph2. I wonder what happens with the Ph2 when the bandwidth of this cpu also increases by going to DDR3 with the AM3 socket. I am sure the Ph2 has some bottlenecks hidden in it's architecture and i feel the most obvious one is the low clock of the IMC and the L3 cache. When compared the i7 has much higher uncore clocks. If AMD can scale the "uncore" clocks up of phenom2 i am sure we can see some increase in performance.

The core i7 maybe the fastest but the price range is a lot different. For the enthusiast only the core i7 is good enough but for most people and that includes me too the Ph2 is plain good.

Plain good but slower than a C2Q clocked comparatively.

Look i don't really mind what you say.
I prefer the Ph2 because overal it provides a platform what i want and those Qx chips don't.

And before i forget the Ph2 has Memory disambiguation too it is only called different and it is more conservative. This is what could be improved too with the Ph2, to be more speculative.

non-speculative memory access re-ordering

So you want something slower...I get it. Thanks for sharing

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
I'm glad everyone is so blind that they really believe Intel sent free mobos and memory :roll:

Let me tell you what happened. They tested using the current High end components for either configuration.

Oh, I forgot the reviewers bought the parts, as they were available that very same day at midnight and they picked "next 2 hours" shipping.... talk about retardness.... :roll:

No, most of the big sites receive SAMPLES for testing and reviews. Those samples are usually picked by the manufacturer. It is up to the reviewers to change those configurations. The samples are, officially, not free... but if you keep them for a while for continued reviews, then they are in practice free samples.

As it has been pointed out, if you are already spending money in an X48/X58 mobo and DDR3, why settle for a Penryn chip?

To make a proper assesment of value for the money, a DDR2 configuration should have been used as baseline. In the old days, Anand tested P4 "Northwoods" with i850 chipsets running RDRAM-800 (Rambus) and also tested the P4 in more mundane i845 boards running plain old DDR266.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: William Gaatjes
.
.
.
.
(nested quotes deleted)


Not entirely true but let me expain :

I found that the dual quad extreme Extreme QX9775 3.2 GHz uses FB
DDR2-800. This ram is more expensive.

a qoute from the phoronix site about FB :

FB-DIMMs are designed to bring the best traits from DDR2 memory while combining a new point-to-point serial memory interface. Some of the key benefits for Fully Buffered DIMMs include enhanced reliability, greater bandwidth, improved scalability, and higher capacity per memory channel.

This testsystem is build up using a :

intel DX5400XS motherboard : 599 USD at newegg.
there are 2 cpu's in that test system :
QX9775 : 12MB cache. 3.2Ghz 1549.99 USD at newegg.
QX9775 : 12MB cache. 3.2Ghz 1549.99 USD at newegg.

I google a bit for the Micron ECC DDR2-800
FB-DIMM 2 * 2GB and price found on average 199 USD.


I find it funny this system does not even always win from the Ph2. If you compare the prices. it says it all. The Phenom 2 has a good bang for the buck performance. And i am seriously thinking to wait out longer too see what DDR3 does. If AM3 boost enough performance i might go for AM3 since i will be buying a new system anyway. But even with DDR2 it sure performs good.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! :thumbsup:

Even more in favor of the argument of best peformer for the money. If the Penryns required FB DIMMs that makes their platform more expensive that the AM2+ chips, even if the mobos and the chips were at the same price point.

That explains why as reviewer you MIGHT pick DDR3, but bottom line is, they still got the samples from the manufacturers


Alex

 

[Peter Trend]

No luck on benchmarking this CPU. I plugged it in, put heatsink on and boot...fails to POST, or even beep like it normally does when booting. Tried it with one stick of ram, onboard gpu and no usb devices (except mouse). Still no luck. Put Ph I back in, everything works fine. BIOS for the M3A78-T must not be ready yet. :'(

Edit I've just been searching for a new BIOS. I found that a new BIOS is listed in the BIOS history, but not available to download. It's clearly the one I need:

[ 0802 ]
----------------------
01. Support ACC for AM2+ 45nm CPU.
02. Fix the problem that the system may show boot fail message if ACC enabled.
03. Fix the problem that AM2 CPU Vcore voltage may be incorrect if change CPU voltage in AI Suite.
04. Improve the system performance when use certain CPU.
05. Support new CPUs. Please refer to our website at: http://support.asus.com/cpusupport/cpusupport.aspx
(ACC is a overclock technique which can adjust the voltage and frequency for AMD CPU directly under OS.)

All aboard the FAILboat

 

[Peter Trend]

This looks hopeful...Phenom II 940 is listed on the supported CPUs...but next to that it says 0502
I'm currently using BIOS 0702, that doesnt really makes sense that they would ABANDON support for phII does it?
Wondering whether it's worth flashing to 0502...I'll run out of thermal paste at this rate!

Phenom IIX4 940 (HDZ940XCJ4DGI),3.0GHz,125W,rev.C2,SocketAM2+,Quad-Core ALL
0502

Edit: I found this: http://support.asus.com/cpusupport/cpusupport.aspx

Note
Phenom IIX4 940 (HDZ940XCJ4DGI),3.0GHz,125W,rev.C2,SocketAM2 ,Quad-Core ALL 0502
If your motherboard BIOS version number is greater than the BIOS version listed above, then you will not need to flash your BIOS. However, if your BIOS version is smaller than the version listed above, then you will need to select and download the latest BIOS to update your system. We kindly remind you that there is a certain risk level involved in BIOS flashing, please refer to "BIOS Flashing Method ". If you still have doubts, we will strongly advise you to consult with a PC Professional or your PC dealer for further assistance.

So is this a faulty ph II?! Not sure how to proceed next, maybe I may as well wait for my h2o before I bother swapping cpu...

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Peter Trend
This looks hopeful...Phenom II 940 is listed on the supported CPUs...but next to that it says 0502
I'm currently using BIOS 0702, that doesnt really makes sense that they would ABANDON support for phII does it?
Wondering whether it's worth flashing to 0502...I'll run out of thermal paste at this rate!

Phenom IIX4 940 (HDZ940XCJ4DGI),3.0GHz,125W,rev.C2,SocketAM2+,Quad-Core ALL
0502

Edit: I found this: http://support.asus.com/cpusupport/cpusupport.aspx

Note
Phenom IIX4 940 (HDZ940XCJ4DGI),3.0GHz,125W,rev.C2,SocketAM2 ,Quad-Core ALL 0502
If your motherboard BIOS version number is greater than the BIOS version listed above, then you will not need to flash your BIOS. However, if your BIOS version is smaller than the version listed above, then you will need to select and download the latest BIOS to update your system. We kindly remind you that there is a certain risk level involved in BIOS flashing, please refer to "BIOS Flashing Method ". If you still have doubts, we will strongly advise you to consult with a PC Professional or your PC dealer for further assistance.

So is this a faulty ph II?! Not sure how to proceed next, maybe I may as well wait for my h2o before I bother swapping cpu...

When you put your PhII in the mobo did you remember to thoroughly clear the CMOS?