Real Phenom II X4 940 benchmarks

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Quizard
LOL at all the reviews...I must be one of the only ppl to go to the AMD dragon eventin these forums

What are you suggesting? That the PII is better than the reviews are suggesting? What did they show you at this "dragon" event? You probably are the only person on here who's gone. I live in Canada; too far away!

 

[buzznut]

In regards to real world testing, I notice that whenever people want to do a comparison between Intel and AMD processors they always use the highest speed ram for Intel (i.e. ddr3 18000). I f truly convinced of Intel's vast superiority, wouldn't you be ok with leveling the playing field with same speed ddr2 ram?
I know that AMD does not have the fastest processors. Everybody else does too. Wouldn't using the same ram speed in comparisons show exactly what the difference is clock for clock? Not irritated at Intel for making a better product, not even irritated at Intel fan boys who, rightfully so, have plenty to brag about right now.

What is irritating is so called experts taking a max overclocked Intel $1000 processor and $600 DDR3 Dominator ram against a lowly AMD 9950 with 1066 ram.
By using this type of comparison, all that's really being proven is a person knows how to skew data favorably in one direction.

If a quad core processor is 20% less expensive than its competitor but performs within 10% isn't that a good deal?

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: buzznut
What is irritating is so called experts taking a max overclocked Intel $1000 processor and $600 DDR3 Dominator ram against a lowly AMD 9950 with 1066 ram.

Where do you see this being done?

 

[BlueBlazer]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
The cinebench numbers don't look promising. Those in any case have some connection to the real world. Then again, obviously the jury's still out.

Cinebench is based on a real world application Cinema4D.

Originally posted by: buzznut
In regards to real world testing, I notice that whenever people want to do a comparison between Intel and AMD processors they always use the highest speed ram for Intel (i.e. ddr3 18000). I f truly convinced of Intel's vast superiority, wouldn't you be ok with leveling the playing field with same speed ddr2 ram?

DDR3 doesn't boost the scores much at all. As this article illustrates DDR2-800 vs. DDR3-1333 - Does DDR3-1333 Make Sense?

There is no miracle again: faster memory yields 1% performance gain on one of the fastest processors with the 1333 MHz FSB, while the only processor for the 1600 MHz bus gains 2% from it. As always, faster memory appears much earlier than we really need it. But let's not act as ignorant users, who shout about being cheated. There is no cheating here. Look at results and draw your conclusions.

Originally posted by: buzznutI know that AMD does not have the fastest processors. Everybody else does too. Wouldn't using the same ram speed in comparisons show exactly what the difference is clock for clock? Not irritated at Intel for making a better product, not even irritated at Intel fan boys who, rightfully so, have plenty to brag about right now.

What is irritating is so called experts taking a max overclocked Intel $1000 processor and $600 DDR3 Dominator ram against a lowly AMD 9950 with 1066 ram.
By using this type of comparison, all that's really being proven is a person knows how to skew data favorably in one direction.

If a quad core processor is 20% less expensive than its competitor but performs within 10% isn't that a good deal?

Here's the deal... Intel platforms are less influenced by RAM than AMD platforms. Mind you that the FSB and the Northbridge already adds latency to the Intel system. You can take any Intel Q9550 quad core and pair with some cheap DDR2-800 value RAM, and yet it will most probably still outperform the AMD Phenom II quad core with more costly DDR2-1066 high performance RAM.

 

[MrX8503]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: buzznut
What is irritating is so called experts taking a max overclocked Intel $1000 processor and $600 DDR3 Dominator ram against a lowly AMD 9950 with 1066 ram.

Where do you see this being done?

Exactly.

A C2Q Q9450 is around $300.

Aside from that point, I highly doubt DDR3 makes that much of a difference.

All other previews of the new PII has been about games, which IMO is pretty pointless as games are more GPU dependent and its already been said through an Anandtech article that Core I7 wasn't going to be much better than C2Q in games anyway.

What Core i7 excels at is number crunching and cpu intensive tasks, which I am doubtful that the PII could compete with.

I applaud AMD for narrowing the gap of performance, but PII isn't its savior as what many people are making it to be.

If people aren't willing to pay for the cost of entry into DDR3 platform and PII pricing is competitive, it may be successful, just like the 4800 gpu series were when they were released.

 

[Martimus]

There are only two weeks until we see real numbers, why even bother looking at all the obviously skewed numbers from either side. It seems that people are either trying to hype it up as the best thing since sliced bread, or the worst thing since Matt Millen. We will see how it performs on January 8th when it is released.

 

[buzznut]

So I've seen this being done on the web, although I don't have articles to show you. I have also seen these comparisons being done in CPU magazine and other magazines as well. In fact I own an issue of CPU magazine that has EXACTLY the kind of comparison that I'm talking about. I am not making this up.
Do you mean to tell me you've never seen an article with a QX9650 going up against an AMD 9950?

My problem is that whether you can justify these practices or not, I know its not apples to apples. Your not gonna fool me.

 

[Phynaz]

What's wrong with a QX9650 against a 9950?

That's best against best, isn't it?

 

[Gikaseixas]

Originally posted by: Martimus
There are only two weeks until we see real numbers, why even bother looking at all the obviously skewed numbers from either side. It seems that people are either trying to hype it up as the best thing since sliced bread, or the worst thing since Matt Millen. We will see how it performs on January 8th when it is released.

+1 i couldn't put it better myself

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
What's wrong with a QX9650 against a 9950?

That's best against best, isn't it?

There is some validity to what you say, since it gives us an idea of what the companies' engineering depts are able to come up with. From a real world perspective though, you really have the compare products in similar price brackets.

IMO, I think one of the things that's going to hamper sales of PII to gamers specifically is that now that i7/X58 are out there is a single, fast platform that will provide native support for both SLI and Crossfire. Even if you aren't generally a big spender, this is worth saving up and waiting for if you have any desire whatsoever to use a multi-gpu setup.

AMD needs to work with NVIDIA to have a chipset that supports both (either theirs or NVIDIA's). They should have actually done that immediately after the AMD/ATI acquisition, as it might have given gamers a reason to pick an AMD platform over having to decide between SLI with nForce or Crossfire with Intel. As is stands now, Intel has the faster, more versatile option... The only thing that AMD may have going for it is price.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
What's wrong with a QX9650 against a 9950?

That's best against best, isn't it?

HD4870 goes against GTX 260 not GTX 280

BMW 3 series goes against MB C-class not MB S-class

9950 is not a QX9650 competitor, AMD doesn't have an answer for Intel.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: buzznut
So I've seen this being done on the web, although I don't have articles to show you. I have also seen these comparisons being done in CPU magazine and other magazines as well. In fact I own an issue of CPU magazine that has EXACTLY the kind of comparison that I'm talking about. I am not making this up.
Do you mean to tell me you've never seen an article with a QX9650 going up against an AMD 9950?

My problem is that whether you can justify these practices or not, I know its not apples to apples. Your not gonna fool me.

Many reviews sport graphs comparing multiple CPU's - I believe reputable sites do this for reference, not to say "you should by this $1000 CPU instead of this $200 CPU".

You complain about the comparison from a performance viewpoint, but you can turn it around, too. Does the $1000 CPU perform 5x as well as the $200 CPU across the board? If not, then doesn't this put the $200 CPU in a better light?

 

[BlueBlazer]

Originally posted by: buzznut
So I've seen this being done on the web, although I don't have articles to show you. I have also seen these comparisons being done in CPU magazine and other magazines as well. In fact I own an issue of CPU magazine that has EXACTLY the kind of comparison that I'm talking about. I am not making this up.
Do you mean to tell me you've never seen an article with a QX9650 going up against an AMD 9950?

My problem is that whether you can justify these practices or not, I know its not apples to apples.

You must have been "born" yesterday.. A while back Anand did a review on Phenom 9950 here AMD's Phenom X4 9950, 9350e and 9150e: Lower Prices, Voltage Tricks and Strange Behavior and all the systems used were using the same DDR2-800 RAM. Even against the lower Q9450, overall Phenom 9950 lost.

Here's another one AMD's Phenom X4 9350e and 9950 - Ups, Downs and CnQ - LostCircuits, , the Kentsfields use DDR2-800 while the Phenoms use DDR2-1066. The Phenoms are using faster RAM, will that be an advantage? Just compare the top Kentsfield against the top Phenom, then you tell me.

Originally posted by: buzznut
Your not gonna fool me.

Nobody's here to fool you, instead you should think about how you are fooling your ownself.[/quote]

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: BlueBlazer

Originally posted by: buzznut
So I've seen this being done on the web, although I don't have articles to show you. I have also seen these comparisons being done in CPU magazine and other magazines as well. In fact I own an issue of CPU magazine that has EXACTLY the kind of comparison that I'm talking about. I am not making this up.
Do you mean to tell me you've never seen an article with a QX9650 going up against an AMD 9950?

My problem is that whether you can justify these practices or not, I know its not apples to apples.

You must have been "born" yesterday.. A while back Anand did a review on Phenom 9950 here AMD's Phenom X4 9950, 9350e and 9150e: Lower Prices, Voltage Tricks and Strange Behavior and all the systems used were using the same DDR2-800 RAM. Even against the lower Q9450, overall Phenom 9950 lost.

Here's another one AMD's Phenom X4 9350e and 9950 - Ups, Downs and CnQ - LostCircuits, the Kentsfields use DDR2-800 while the Phenoms use DDR2-1066. The Phenoms are using faster RAM, will that be an advantage? Just compare the top Kentsfield against the top Phenom, then you tell me.

Originally posted by: buzznut
Your not gonna fool me.

Nobody's here to fool you, instead you should think about how you are fooling your ownself.

Exactly...If a platform is designed to work with DDR3 then you dont neuter it to help the low guy on the totem pole.....

Amd only has to stay close and it will look attractive to most....especially if intel doesn't reign in some of their higher prices...

 

[BlueBlazer]

My mistake, the LostCircuits was using DDR3 also for the Kentsfield. The DDR2 is for the dual cores.

This one AMD Phenom X4 9950 Black Edition Review - hardCOREware.net uses DDR2-800 for all the systems.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Phynaz
What's wrong with a QX9650 against a 9950?

That's best against best, isn't it?

no the fact that the 9650 was retailing at 999..

9950 toped no more then 300...

It amazes me how none of you guys are holding budget same on both platforms..

if you do this, you will see a clear difference..

You guys are quick to dsiclaim and quick to jump the bandwagon... We said it once... AMD has no intensions of catching intel or beating it..

There main point was PRICE / VALUE.

So if i can build a 750 dollar AMD PHII Box and have it perform near a 1300 dollar Intel Yorkie box..

How can you guys say thats not a win?

Also if your the type that can afford a 1300 yorkie box... then you can also probably afford a 1400 dollar i7 box... so then why are you even looking at this thread past the first post?

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

You guys are quick to dsiclaim and quick to jump the bandwagon... We said it once... AMD has no intensions of catching intel or beating it..

There main point was PRICE / VALUE.

So if i can build a 750 dollar AMD PHII Box and have it perform near a 1300 dollar Intel Yorkie box..

How can you guys say thats not a win?

Those who say this are probably people for whom money is no object and who just want the fastest epenis at any given time. For most of users, who have limited means and upgrade every 2-3 years, price/value is very important, along with backwards/future platform compatibility and availability. For me, going from my X2 4200+ to a Ph II 940 would be enough to keep me happy for the next 2-3 years indeed.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Phynaz
What's wrong with a QX9650 against a 9950?

That's best against best, isn't it?

no the fact that the 9650 was retailing at 999..

9950 toped no more then 300...

It amazes me how none of you guys are holding budget same on both platforms..

if you do this, you will see a clear difference..

You guys are quick to dsiclaim and quick to jump the bandwagon... We said it once... AMD has no intensions of catching intel or beating it..

There main point was PRICE / VALUE.

So if i can build a 750 dollar AMD PHII Box and have it perform near a 1300 dollar Intel Yorkie box..

How can you guys say thats not a win?

Also if your the type that can afford a 1300 yorkie box... then you can also probably afford a 1400 dollar i7 box... so then why are you even looking at this thread past the first post?

Come on, Aigo. You know that you can buy a Q9450 and get the performance of a QX9770. Yes, you have to OC, but thats usually what enthusiasts do.

Is Grandma going to start learning what Vcore is and crank out a stable OC in BIOS? Probably not unless she is a really cool grandma.

For older people, or people who just want a 100% stable system out of the box with no worries, AMD has some great mobo/CPU offerings. But the E5200 isnt too shabby either.

PRICE/VALUE for Intel is great. The E7300 with the right adjustments can make you feel like you have a QX.

I think one thing AMD is counting on to gain some marketshare this round, is the PII "headroom" that we have seen on internal AMD slides. If they can get near 4ghz on air, and undercut the C2Q pricing, it will be great for everyone.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

Originally posted by: Phynaz
What's wrong with a QX9650 against a 9950?

That's best against best, isn't it?

no the fact that the 9650 was retailing at 999..

9950 toped no more then 300...

It amazes me how none of you guys are holding budget same on both platforms..

if you do this, you will see a clear difference..

You guys are quick to dsiclaim and quick to jump the bandwagon... We said it once... AMD has no intensions of catching intel or beating it..

There main point was PRICE / VALUE.

So if i can build a 750 dollar AMD PHII Box and have it perform near a 1300 dollar Intel Yorkie box..

How can you guys say thats not a win?

Also if your the type that can afford a 1300 yorkie box... then you can also probably afford a 1400 dollar i7 box... so then why are you even looking at this thread past the first post?

Because I can build a $800 Yorkie box now that beats the PhenomII before it's released.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Quizard
LOL at all the reviews...I must be one of the only ppl to go to the AMD dragon eventin these forums

What are you suggesting? That the PII is better than the reviews are suggesting? What did they show you at this "dragon" event? You probably are the only person on here who's gone. I live in Canada; too far away!

That event showed Gaming benchmarks which were, are, and continue to be GPU limited. There was no comparason done in applications that use the CPU intensely.