Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [hwbox] Phenom II 920 and 940 complete review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[hwbox] Phenom II 920 and 940 complete review - Page 14

post #131 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrienspawn View Post
I think the lower-end PII actually does perform worse than the 940, in which case there would be no point in upgrading. The i7 920 on the other hand can be overclocked just as easily as the 940. But if you want just the cheaper PII for the hell of it then why not, knock 50$ off.
I don't think there is any difference besides clock speed/unlocked multi but I could be wrong. I can say that the 920 OC validations I've seen seem to be lower on average.
post #132 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrienspawn View Post
I think the lower-end PII actually does perform worse than the 940, in which case there would be no point in upgrading. The i7 920 on the other hand can be overclocked just as easily as the 940. But if you want just the cheaper PII for the hell of it then why not, knock 50$ off.
wow, took alot of effort for you to realize that a lower spec'd product performs comparably lower than it's higher spec'd brethren.

and about your comment that an e8400 rig will have be faster than one of the new AMD's chips for less - show me, i'd really like to see.
Edited by pixie - 12/29/08 at 6:49pm
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PhII X4 940 @ 3.6GHz @ 1.50v ASUS M4A79... CPU-NB @ 2756MHz @ 1.40v ASUS 4870x2, 830/1000 OCZ DDR2-1150 @ 1129MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1x VelociRaptor, 2x Raptor X's RAID 0 2x ASUS DVD-RW's Vista Ultimate x86/XP x86 22" Chimei 1680x1050 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 OCZ ModXstream 900W TT Armor Black Logitech G9 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PhII X4 940 @ 3.6GHz @ 1.50v ASUS M4A79... CPU-NB @ 2756MHz @ 1.40v ASUS 4870x2, 830/1000 OCZ DDR2-1150 @ 1129MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1x VelociRaptor, 2x Raptor X's RAID 0 2x ASUS DVD-RW's Vista Ultimate x86/XP x86 22" Chimei 1680x1050 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 OCZ ModXstream 900W TT Armor Black Logitech G9 
  hide details  
Reply
post #133 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixie View Post
wow, took alot of effort for you to realize that a lower spec'd product performs comparably lower than it's higher spec'd brethren.

You're missing the point: the lower-end i7 performs pretty much identically to the 965 which is 1000$ I believe thelower-end PII to be worse than the 940. You say it's easy and it is, but you managed to miss.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pixie View Post
and about your comment that an e8400 rig will have the same results as either (don't remember which you said) of the new AMD's chips for less - show me, i'd really like to see.
I haven't seen any direct comparisons, but I know that the better version of the PIIs (not the lower one) is on par with a Q6600, and I know an E8400 is better than the Q6600 for gaming which is what the PIIs are for..... so yeah...not too hard to put one and one together.
Obsidian
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 3.6ghz 1.146v EVGA x58 GTX470 water 6GB 1600mhz 6-8-6-18 1.6V 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
SSD (80+60GB) HDD (2+2TB) Windows 7 x64 24" + 22" G15 
PowerCaseMouse
M12D 850W 800D G9 
  hide details  
Reply
Obsidian
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 3.6ghz 1.146v EVGA x58 GTX470 water 6GB 1600mhz 6-8-6-18 1.6V 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
SSD (80+60GB) HDD (2+2TB) Windows 7 x64 24" + 22" G15 
PowerCaseMouse
M12D 850W 800D G9 
  hide details  
Reply
post #134 of 155
really, a simple 45nm dual core is better than a 65nm quad core... hmm. i'd like to see those comparisons as i don't frequent intel land.

so anybody who buys anything other than an i7 920 is a moron (just among i7 chips), is that what you're saying? i mean you'd have to be a complete imbecile to spend 5 times the amount of money on a similar performing chip.

you should probably check your reasoning filter as there's probably some lint in there...

"hi, i'm adrienspawn and i know that an i7 920, 940, and 965 all perform the same. i also know that the as-of-yet un-released PII 920 performs worse than the PII 940."

that about sums up your thoughts.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PhII X4 940 @ 3.6GHz @ 1.50v ASUS M4A79... CPU-NB @ 2756MHz @ 1.40v ASUS 4870x2, 830/1000 OCZ DDR2-1150 @ 1129MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1x VelociRaptor, 2x Raptor X's RAID 0 2x ASUS DVD-RW's Vista Ultimate x86/XP x86 22" Chimei 1680x1050 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 OCZ ModXstream 900W TT Armor Black Logitech G9 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PhII X4 940 @ 3.6GHz @ 1.50v ASUS M4A79... CPU-NB @ 2756MHz @ 1.40v ASUS 4870x2, 830/1000 OCZ DDR2-1150 @ 1129MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1x VelociRaptor, 2x Raptor X's RAID 0 2x ASUS DVD-RW's Vista Ultimate x86/XP x86 22" Chimei 1680x1050 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 OCZ ModXstream 900W TT Armor Black Logitech G9 
  hide details  
Reply
post #135 of 155
I'm not quite sure why people have concluded the phenom II's performance has been set in stone from the results of one review. No offense to the reviewer, I'm sure their scores are legit but as mentioned previously, bios versions and motherboard variations can amount to sometimes quite significant differences. Even if they were not significant, the game performance of the 940 seems quite decent, so even a slight-to-modest increase would help shine some favourable light on it when compared to other processors. Game performance isn't the end all and be all, but gaming/enthusiast crowd seems to be where this chip is aimed at.

Case in point, head over to the xtremesystems forums, where there are a lot more available benchmarks, or check out the ocw ones that are linked somewhere on OCN. I dislike how some people are already trying to impose the idea that the phenom II is already the poor man's, or in some cases even the 'stupid' man's choice. We just don't have the complete picture yet, either way, of how this processor will actually perform.

In either case, for those people coming in here bashing the phenom II, keep in mind this was released primarily for exisitng AM2+ platform users. For people who already have an exisiting and compatable system, popping one of these in should be great value once normal retail prices are reached. While its in amd's interests to release a processor that more people will buy, at least it shows they have not forgotten older adopters of their technology and are still prolonging the longevity of the platform. In my book thats 'win', because it means I'll be able to pick up a new processor that should do well, and should be a fun overclocker.

And for those who argue that its important for amd to gain more market share and attract users, thats true too. But I believe thats what the AM3 platform is really/most intended for. Reports claim (it has not been proven yet, but neither has the full potential of the phenom II am2+ variant) that performance increases are in the 5% range. Now imagine that the bios/mobo hwbox are using limits potential by roughly 5%, and you have a completely different scenario when deciding on a new system. I know you cannot always just add the two together and say 'well that means the am3 versions will be 10% better!' but we simply do not know either way yet how it will perform. So why the heck are people coming in here bashing it, saying people should buy xx, stick with yy, wait for zz, when we just dont know yet. Wait for the NDA to lift, and this processor to become widely available, then we will be able to safely draw conclusions.
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon W3530 @ 4.5GHz stable EVGA Classified E760 | EK-WB 2x 5870 @ 1GHz in Crossfire 6GB G.Skill Trident 2000MHz DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x 7200.12 500GB Raid 0, 2x 2TB WD greens Liteon iHAS324 Win 7 Professional x64 24" Samsung 245b 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech g15 rev. 2 Enermax Revolution 85+ 1250W TJ-07 Death Adder v2 
Mouse Pad
Qck Heavy 
  hide details  
Reply
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon W3530 @ 4.5GHz stable EVGA Classified E760 | EK-WB 2x 5870 @ 1GHz in Crossfire 6GB G.Skill Trident 2000MHz DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x 7200.12 500GB Raid 0, 2x 2TB WD greens Liteon iHAS324 Win 7 Professional x64 24" Samsung 245b 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech g15 rev. 2 Enermax Revolution 85+ 1250W TJ-07 Death Adder v2 
Mouse Pad
Qck Heavy 
  hide details  
Reply
post #136 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixie View Post
so anybody who buys anything other than an i7 920 is a moron (just among i7 chips), is that what you're saying? i mean you'd have to be a complete imbecile to spend 5 times the amount of money on a similar performing chip.

you should probably check your reasoning filter as there's probably some lint in there...

"hi, i'm adrienspawn and i know that an i7 920, 940, and 965 all perform the same.
I never said any of that. I said the i7 is ABOUT the same as the others, and it is. If you have some benchmarks that prove otherwise, show them. I'm all for the 940 and 965, but not everyone is rich.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pixie View Post
really, a simple 45nm dual core is better than a 65nm quad core... hmm. i'd like to see those comparisons as i don't frequent intel land.
It's well-known that games don't use more than 2 cores efficiently yet, and a higher-clocked dualie will blow a lower-clocked quad out of the water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pixie View Post
i also know that the as-of-yet un-released PII 920 performs worse than the PII 940."

that about sums up your thoughts.
Big surprise: It does. If you think the 920 outperforms the 940 you're completely 'dans le champs'.
Obsidian
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 3.6ghz 1.146v EVGA x58 GTX470 water 6GB 1600mhz 6-8-6-18 1.6V 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
SSD (80+60GB) HDD (2+2TB) Windows 7 x64 24" + 22" G15 
PowerCaseMouse
M12D 850W 800D G9 
  hide details  
Reply
Obsidian
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 3.6ghz 1.146v EVGA x58 GTX470 water 6GB 1600mhz 6-8-6-18 1.6V 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
SSD (80+60GB) HDD (2+2TB) Windows 7 x64 24" + 22" G15 
PowerCaseMouse
M12D 850W 800D G9 
  hide details  
Reply
post #137 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrienspawn View Post
It's well-known that games don't use more than 2 cores efficiently yet, and a higher-clocked dualie will blow a lower-clocked quad out of the water.
While thats mostly true for intel's previous generation, there's nothing saying that a quad-core cannot be better than a dual-core for games. Simply put you are correct when you say that games do not use more than 2 cores efficiently for the most part, however there's no rule saying that clock-per-clock the two cores used in a quad cannot beat a dual core, game performance wise.

Traditionally dual cores are easier to oc, and thats one of the reasons they tend to out perform the quads in games as you mentioned. However, these phenoms so far seem to OC quite well, so taking the above logic, what happens if you manage to oc a phenom higher than a dual-core e8400? Will it beat it in games performance yet? How about if you include the fact that the newer quads from both intel (i7) and amd seem to scale better with multiple gpu's? Quite fraknly I don't think there have been many if any legit or even fake reviews comparing these, so we can't say one way or another.

Who knows, maybe it does beat the dual-cores, maybe it does not your guess is as good as mine right now. I'll be interested to see how they compare when the dust finally settles, but dont go counting the chickens just yet.
Edited by Drin - 12/29/08 at 8:22pm
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon W3530 @ 4.5GHz stable EVGA Classified E760 | EK-WB 2x 5870 @ 1GHz in Crossfire 6GB G.Skill Trident 2000MHz DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x 7200.12 500GB Raid 0, 2x 2TB WD greens Liteon iHAS324 Win 7 Professional x64 24" Samsung 245b 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech g15 rev. 2 Enermax Revolution 85+ 1250W TJ-07 Death Adder v2 
Mouse Pad
Qck Heavy 
  hide details  
Reply
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Xeon W3530 @ 4.5GHz stable EVGA Classified E760 | EK-WB 2x 5870 @ 1GHz in Crossfire 6GB G.Skill Trident 2000MHz DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x 7200.12 500GB Raid 0, 2x 2TB WD greens Liteon iHAS324 Win 7 Professional x64 24" Samsung 245b 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech g15 rev. 2 Enermax Revolution 85+ 1250W TJ-07 Death Adder v2 
Mouse Pad
Qck Heavy 
  hide details  
Reply
post #138 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drin View Post
While thats mostly true for intel's previous generation, there's nothing saying that a quad-core cannot be better than a dual-core for games. Simply put you are correct when you say that games do not use more than 2 cores efficiently for the most part, 1. however there's no rule saying that clock-per-clock the two cores used in a quad cannot beat a dual core, game performance wise.

Traditionally dual cores are easier to oc, and thats one of the reasons they tend to out perform the quads in games as you mentioned. However, these 2. phenoms so far seem to OC quite well, so taking the above logic, what happens if you manage to oc a phenom higher than a dual-core e8400? Will it beat it in games performance yet? How about if you include the fact that the newer quads from both intel (i7) and amd seem to scale better with multiple gpu's? Quite fraknly I don't think there have been many if any legit or even fake reviews comparing these, so we can't say one way or another.

Who knows, maybe it does beat the dual-cores, maybe it does not your guess is as good as mine right now. I'll be interested to see how they compare when the dust finally settles, but dont go counting the eggs just yet.
I agree, I'll just comment on two things:

1. I never said that, but now that you mention it, since two cores take up less space then one, usually dual cores have more cache which would make it better clock-for-clock, if not noticeably. But dualies are usually clocked higher in the first place.

2. I'm hearing anywhere from 3.5ghz to 4ghz for the P2s so far, while an E8400 is pretty much guaranteed 4ghz, some getting to 4.4ghz without topping 1.36V. But I agree more OCing tests have to be done.
Obsidian
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 3.6ghz 1.146v EVGA x58 GTX470 water 6GB 1600mhz 6-8-6-18 1.6V 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
SSD (80+60GB) HDD (2+2TB) Windows 7 x64 24" + 22" G15 
PowerCaseMouse
M12D 850W 800D G9 
  hide details  
Reply
Obsidian
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 930 3.6ghz 1.146v EVGA x58 GTX470 water 6GB 1600mhz 6-8-6-18 1.6V 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
SSD (80+60GB) HDD (2+2TB) Windows 7 x64 24" + 22" G15 
PowerCaseMouse
M12D 850W 800D G9 
  hide details  
Reply
post #139 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrienspawn View Post
I agree, I'll just comment on two things:

1. I never said that, but now that you mention it, since two cores take up less space then one, usually dual cores have more cache which would make it better clock-for-clock, if not noticeably. But dualies are usually clocked higher in the first place.

2. I'm hearing anywhere from 3.5ghz to 4ghz for the P2s so far, while an E8400 is pretty much guaranteed 4ghz, some getting to 4.4ghz without topping 1.36V. But I agree more OCing tests have to be done.
A couple points. Although dual cores typically achieve higher average fps, many quad owners (myself included) report better framerate stability. I have an E8400 and an E7200 in my closet along with a P35 mobo and choose to use a quad for the games I play at the moment.

Also, we have no idea what max safe volts for a Phenom II is, so say an E8400 hits 4ghz @1.36 while a Phenom II hits 4Ghz @ 1.525... that doesn't necessarily tell you anything about which is "better". Also, just because a chip is running on a higher voltage does not necessarily mean it is consuming more power, or dissipating more heat.
post #140 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrienspawn View Post
I never said any of that. I said the i7 is ABOUT the same as the others, and it is.

Big surprise: It does. If you think the 920 outperforms the 940 you're completely 'dans le champs'.
so what you're telling me is that intel has figured out a way to have lower clocked, lesser expensive chips perform relatively the same as their higher clocked, most expensive chips.

you're not too bright are you? or are you just blind? i can't really tell from over here. there's no damn way in hell that you can sit there with a straight face and spew that bs. there's a reason why they make chips that are have a few MHz difference between 'em... so that one will perform better than the other stock.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PhII X4 940 @ 3.6GHz @ 1.50v ASUS M4A79... CPU-NB @ 2756MHz @ 1.40v ASUS 4870x2, 830/1000 OCZ DDR2-1150 @ 1129MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1x VelociRaptor, 2x Raptor X's RAID 0 2x ASUS DVD-RW's Vista Ultimate x86/XP x86 22" Chimei 1680x1050 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 OCZ ModXstream 900W TT Armor Black Logitech G9 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
PhII X4 940 @ 3.6GHz @ 1.50v ASUS M4A79... CPU-NB @ 2756MHz @ 1.40v ASUS 4870x2, 830/1000 OCZ DDR2-1150 @ 1129MHz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
1x VelociRaptor, 2x Raptor X's RAID 0 2x ASUS DVD-RW's Vista Ultimate x86/XP x86 22" Chimei 1680x1050 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech G15 OCZ ModXstream 900W TT Armor Black Logitech G9 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [hwbox] Phenom II 920 and 940 complete review