Phenom II reviews
- Thread starter Ateo
- Start date
When you press down on the pins, the board flexes. Sometimes the things don't click in without some significant force. Whenever I run into someone who's just set up a Core 2 sys, I ask what they thought about the heatsink install and they always seem to say that they had to push down hard and weren't sure if the things were locking in tightly or not.
I just think that it is a stupid design. You are bending the board when you install a cooler, putting mechanical stress on traces and such. I definitely don't see how this is better than the evolved clip+lever system that AMD is still using. I'd like to hear the logic behind the design.
I find the AMD system superior for the most part. I wish there were prongs on all sides of the bracket personally, so you could rotate the heatsink to your needs. That is the one aspect I find superior with Intel's method, the various orientations possible are nice.
Ah yes, indeed!But IQ unacceptable said AMD proccies "hitch" less in gameslol
I didn't even look at NewEgg honestly, I just typed Intel Q9300 into Google shopping and came back with the pricing from there. They're a tad bit cheaper than the AMD 920. And a "reasonable" board from each camp is approximately the same ~$100 cost -- at least one 16x PCI-E 2.0 slot, four DDR2 slots, at least four SATA connectors with some ability to RAID, at least a 100mbit network link and something like a 5.1 audio solution onboard.
Exactly, I couldn't agree more. It would pain me to buy an AM2 or a 775 setup right now, simply because you already know you're buying technology that is on it's way out. Same with the HD4000 setup that I already have. But I can't make myself choke down the $800 minimum pricetag for an Intel 920, half-decent motherboard and three sticks of DDR3 ram.
Yup.
another review:
http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=1
Their power consumption measurement methodology is pretty intriguing
http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=1
Their power consumption measurement methodology is pretty intriguing
I've noticed slight board flexing, but never had to apply so much force I worried about breaking a trace or actually cracking the pcb. Just really easy to pull off, clean, swap cpu, and reinstall. I hate those old retention clips, I've slipped with a screwdriver and felt like I was at risk to gouge the mobo more times than I care to think about over the years.
One thing I've noticed with the Intel LGA 775 heatsinks after installing a Core2Duo and a Core2Quad is the Core2Duo install was painless while the Core2Quad was a royal pain in the ass.
So those who said the LGA 775 HSF install isn't that bad, have you actually installed a Quad Core CPU HSF?
So those who said the LGA 775 HSF install isn't that bad, have you actually installed a Quad Core CPU HSF?
Well while I am overall positive for Phenom II, specially on the cost side of the things, making mine the arguments about value and competetivity exposed, specially because I am a AMD fan and I do have a AM2+ platform so... anyway I still think that something isnt right (not necessaraly wrong).
That is in two things, first one is the price after all the new production tech (dont recal the name) should give them much better yields in a already smaller CPU than Intels one, so much lower costs (in fact is smaler than Phenom with better speeds and a lot pricier), but that can be just because it is new (and all it markets laws and/or inexperience with tthe new process) or they want to make some quick money, or just having some manuver space. So I do expect this CPU to lower the price fast in the future.
The other problem is that it just inst as good as it should(?)could be. I mean, it does have more transistores than a i7, almost the same die size, the same speeds, almost the same power consumption, it is for desktop PCs... yet it still is significantly slower than the i7.
That is in two things, first one is the price after all the new production tech (dont recal the name) should give them much better yields in a already smaller CPU than Intels one, so much lower costs (in fact is smaler than Phenom with better speeds and a lot pricier), but that can be just because it is new (and all it markets laws and/or inexperience with tthe new process) or they want to make some quick money, or just having some manuver space. So I do expect this CPU to lower the price fast in the future.
The other problem is that it just inst as good as it should(?)could be. I mean, it does have more transistores than a i7, almost the same die size, the same speeds, almost the same power consumption, it is for desktop PCs... yet it still is significantly slower than the i7.
If I OC an Q9400 is that flawed too?
(Hint: The Phailure2 was OC'ed too)
Hollow win...wait for Intel's pricecuts, like I have stated before.
I have no such doubt, I am planning my i7 build, time to upgrade my Q6600 and AMD has no offering that interest me....hte performance just ins't there.
Close dosn't get you any points, it just make you close...to little, to hyped, to late.
I suggest you actually read the HardOCP review. The CPUs they used are the Core i7 965, a $1,000 CPU. The other Intel chip was a Core 2 Quad QX9770 which is a $1,400 processor. Which already shows how stupid and ridiculous their review is. Additionally the comments of an OC'd comparison are completely invalid. A Q9400 at 3.2GHz != a stock QX9770. The Q9400 is equipped with 6MB of cache, half the size of a QX9770's 12MB. This extended to the overclock comparison, where again the most expensive of Intel options were used. The Phenom II isn't going to compete against those, this is painfully obvious.
Which puts the Q9400 and Phenom 920 at parity. Again, motherboard pricing comes into play. Limited win? Yes, but a win. I already stated this, it is fact.
Then build a Core i7 system. The Phenom II never even seriously appeared to be an option. These results are not shocking and they're completely in line with what has been reasonably expected for some time. In fact, Tech Report did a review of Shanghi several weeks ago that firmly cemented what the consumer part (Phenom II) would produce. While I'm sure AMD would have loved to fulfill your budget path, it is simply not reality and they'll work with what they have.
If you were expecting Core i7 performance then I suggest you find better sources and stop listening to irrational fanboy posting. Even AMD's marketing has suggested parity at lower prices for the most part. They're certainly guilty of overstating it a bit much, but too hyped? Hardly.
What? They didn't set out with that philosophy. This chip was being tweaked from an existing architecture with reasonable goals in mind. These companies don't work on a processor with the competition solely in mind, they don't think as forum posters. The fact is the Phenom II is what it is. Take it or leave it. It is a chip that's priced on the low end of the quad core spectrum that is currently at parity with the competitions line up in the same price bracket. It has slight chipset and motherboard pricing advantages in one form factor. This is NOT a good situation for AMD, but it is BETTER than where they were before. Did you honestly expected AMD to cart out this chip going "Sorry guys, we're late, just at parity, and have no chance in the high end market"? No, you didn't (at least I hope). They produced the best processor they could at this point in time, they clearly don't have a new architecture to launch right now and they clearly don't have a $1,000 CPU either. This isn't about philosophy, it is about reality
Reality: They have about a six month gap to gain ground. They're going to gain extremely little. They're going to have nothing to go up against Core i7 right now or Core i5 when it launches. They're going to be in the same position Phenom I was. Nothing rosy about it. Just the facts.
I repeat, since you have a hard to understanding:
If I OC a Q9400 to 3.2Ghz, it will beat a OC'ed Phenom2 @ 3.2Ghz.
Those are facts!
Now if you do not understand that they used a more expensive chip, because they happend to have one, and the results would have been the SAME if they had OC'ed an CHEAPER chip, then you are just a waste of time.
ALL reviews agrees that the Phenom2 is slower, clock for clock to the Core2Quads.
Period!
Again.
PERIOD!
Now the Phenom2 and Core2Quads overclock the to about the same Hz...
But a Phenom @ 3.8Ghz cannot beat a Core2Quad @ 3.2Ghz.
So your fallacy about prive does nothing but prove you ignorance in that regard.
Feel free to post data that whows otherwise...untill then, you are a waste of my time.
Not a win...more like showing up 2 years late.
The i7 920 is the perfect replacement for my Q6600, most OC to ~4Ghz and nothing AMD has comes near that price/preformance.
I am not the one with my balls in a sling, whining...I'm just dissapointed in AMD for not delivering any competion.
Yup, like I said, to little, to late, to hyped...and quit whing about "~$1000"pats, since you obiviously don't understand what overclocking is all about.
The Phailure2 is only "good" if you have a compatiable AM2 motherboard.
New build:
Pure performance: Go i7, nothing touches it.
Price/performance: Go Core2Quad, same price as Phenom2, but way more performance if you know how to go beyond stock.
Religion goes to rpsc. Calling it the Phailure2 proves we've moved into religion or that boi thing we can't mention. The Ph2 is comparable to the Intel proccies in it's price bracket. It's no "victor" and no "failure" it's just a me too. As an enthusiast I still think the C2D is the best going since i7 is pricey and scalding hot. Ph2 might make a good HTPC build. Either way it's a bad time to build and these are just chips.