Phenom II reviews

[Ateo]

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNywxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom-ii-x4.html
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=16757
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,..._X4-_Deneb_reviewed/?article_id=672218&page=1
http://www.amdzone.com/index.php/news/cpus/11034-amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-be-review
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/amd_phenom_ii
http://www.cluboc.net/reviews/cpu/amd/PhenomII940Black
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1460
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_phenom_2_940_performance/
http://ww.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=667&Itemid=27
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2009/01/08/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/1
http://www.ocworkbench.com/2009/gigabyte/N295-18I-B/intro-Gigabyte-N295-18I-B-295-GTX.htm

 

[rpg.314]

Generally, positive, but it can't beat Nehalem, but is very competitive with Penryn. The difference in well threaded loads like Far Cry was ~40%. I suppose that, multiple hardware threads/core are going to be pervasive in next gen CPUs.

 

[Ateo]

Generally, positive, but it can't beat Nehalem, but is very competitive with Penryn. The difference in well threaded loads like Far Cry was ~40%. I suppose that, multiple hardware threads/core are going to be pervasive in next gen CPUs.

Still can't beat Yorkfield clock for clock and all Intel needs to do is lower prices until they launch i5...and AMD is still having to cut margins.

 

[epicstruggle]

Wow, they have a long way to go.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Still can't beat Yorkfield clock for clock and all Intel needs to do is lower prices until they launch i5...and AMD is still having to cut margins.

Yeah thats the problem. Its nicely competitive with Intels mid range C2Q's. As soon as you want a little more performance, Intel is once again the only option. And as you say, it only takes one small price cut that Intel can easily afford to make to relagate Phenom II into the uncompetitive zone again. At least without dropping prices and hurting margins.

EDIT: What will happen next is Intel will lower prices, followed by AMD and the same competitive landscape that exist now will exist again, just at a lower price point. That lower price point will hurt AMD more than it hurts Intel.

You could argue the success of the Phenom II is that its managed to claw its way up the performance parity ladder from the Q6600 to the Q9400. A decent achievement I guess but then Intel has now made the ladder 3 rungs higher with i7! AMD's in a better position than it was before, but not massively better IMO. The claims of "AMD's back!" from some of the reviews is greatly overstated IMO, but its worth saying anyway if only to drum up a bit of support!

 

[homerdog]

Fortunately for AMD the Yorkies are still waaaaay overpriced. I was surprised when building my friend a new system that the Q6600 is still the best bang for buck Intel quad. I mean really, the Q9550 is more expensive than the i7 920.

 

[Ateo]

Fortunately for AMD the Yorkies are still waaaaay overpriced. I was surprised when building my friend a new system that the Q6600 is still the best bang for buck Intel quad. I mean really, the Q9550 is more expensive than the i7 920.

I recommend the Q6600 to a work colleague that just made a budget build, but I think think will look very different in just a month.

 

[Sxotty]

Hopefully the rumored price cut comes through. I want to get a quad core eventually, but wanted it to be significantly faster than my 2.6ghz C2D.

 

[uh101]

The Phenom II is looking impressive

 

[Ateo]

Ádded more reviews...the more the marrier

 

[digitalwanderer]

it only takes one small price cut that Intel can easily afford to make to relagate Phenom II into the uncompetitive zone again. At least without dropping prices and hurting margins.

Actually it's the mobos that I find the killer expense with Intel stuff lately, their i7 mobos are just flat-out expensive right now. Their habit of changing sockets every few weeks probably doesn't help either.

 

[ninelven]

Yep... the Core i7 920 puts the Phenom II's in same situation as its predecessor. :/

 

[Skrying]

You have to compare the platform. The Core i7 920 might be of a similar price but the platform needed for it is much much more expensive. On the other hand you can buy a AM2+ board compatible with the new Phenom II for $65 and you get as many features as a $120 Intel based board. That is a bit outrageous.

Phenom II could be used in a budget platform where the amount you're going to spend is very strict. Otherwise though this chip is already dead. Feel sorry for AMD.

 

[swaaye]

To me, it looks like it matches Kentsfield per clock on average. Ahead in some, behind in others. When you compare it to Yorkfield, it looks like Phenom 1 vs. Kentsfield.

I might get one of these for my 780G board someday. Have to get pretty cheap though. I already have this performance level from my 1.5 yr old Q6600 @ 3.0 (stock v). Otherwise I'm holding out for the mainstream Nehalem variant. Nehalem is in an entirely separate class from Phenom and C2Q for apps that really leverage multithreading.

 

[Davros]

Actually it's the mobos that I find the killer expense with Intel stuff lately, their i7 mobos are just flat-out expensive right now.

Toms hardware built a i7 system for an article and the board cost more than the cpu...

ps: clock for clock how much faster is i7 than a c2quad ?

 

[swaaye]

Toms hardware built a i7 system for an article and the board cost more than the cpu...

There are some cheaper boards showing up. Gigabyte has some out now. I'm not convinced that it's not smarter to wait for the mainstream variant of Nehalem though.

 

[Albuquerque]

clock for clock how much faster is i7 than a c2quad ?

The old adage"it depends" really applies here. On apps that aren't threaded, it may actually be slower in certain circumstances. Then again, it may be even, or again, maybe 10-15% faster depending on the type of work being done... On apps that are heavily threaded, it can wallop the C2Q to the tune of 50% or more thanks to the hyperthreading component.

Actually it's the mobos that I find the killer expense with Intel stuff lately, their i7 mobos are just flat-out expensive right now. Their habit of changing sockets every few weeks probably doesn't help either.

I don't disagree with the cost at all, but changing sockets hasn't really been any sort of "often" in my opinion. Socket 775 has been around for five years; socket 478 had a similar life span. Sure, AMD has been sticking with variations of AM2 for a while, but perhaps that's why they aren't as competitive? Generally speaking, AMD hasn't needed to move sockets much because their battle plan hasn't changed much -- they've had multi-cpu and IMC technology for quite a while now.

I'd still like to say that I could use a five year old Intel board to run a brand new i7, but that's just not technologically feasible when you're talking about the CPU entirely replacing what used to be the northbridge.

 

[Skrying]

A socket 775 board from five years ago can't run any Core 2 Duo. They were on that socket for some time but wasn't effectively the same for that entire life span. A number of boards coming out just before C2D launch wouldn't even work. However, the "effective" span of C2D compatible boards is just as long as AMD's AM2/AM2+ lineup.

The real socket issue to me is going to be mid way this year when Intel releases a new one for the lower end Nehalem chips. That really irks me. (About as much as the rumor of AMD not producing AM2+ PII chips for very long).

In many ways I think AMD might have been better off holding the Phenom II back even longer and release it along with AM3. Market the chip similar to how the HD4000 series was, ignore the top end and produce a highly overclockable mid range chip. Would have been a lot of potential there.

 

[Albuquerque]

A socket 775 board from five years ago can't run any Core 2 Duo. They were on that socket for some time might but wasn't effectively the same for that entire life span. A number of boards coming out just before C2D launch wouldn't even work. However, the "effective" span of C2D compatible boards is just as long as AMD's AM2/AM2+ lineup.

Quite true, I meant to include that and typo'd myself to death instead...

The real socket issue to me is going to be mid way this year when Intel releases a new one for the lower end Nehalem chips. That really irks me.

I also very much agree with this. I understand what they were trying to accomplish, but there had to be a better way to do it. Meh...

In many ways I think AMD might have been better off holding the Phenom II back even longer and release it along with AM3. Market the chip similar to how the HD4000 series was, ignore the top end and produce a highly overclockable mid range chip. Would have been a lot of potential there.

I dunno, the backlash from all the AM2 owners would probably be significant. I'm not sure what the breakup for AMD processor buyers really is though -- how much processor sales are made up by enthusiasts buying parts vs big VAR's buying up whole systems? I know for Intel it matters less simply because they make massive money from VAR's like Dell, Sony, HP / Compaq, IBM / Lenovo, hell even Apple. Does the same hold up for AMD?

 

[Skrying]

I dunno, the backlash from all the AM2 owners would probably be significant. I'm not sure what the breakup for AMD processor buyers really is though -- how much processor sales are made up by enthusiasts buying parts vs big VAR's buying up whole systems? I know for Intel it matters less simply because they make massive money from VAR's like Dell, Sony, HP / Compaq, IBM / Lenovo, hell even Apple. Does the same hold up for AMD?

I must say that from my own perspective that I admire the AM2+ Phenom II and I think to anyone who owns a AMD based system they just got a rather cheap and significant performance increase without having to replace the entire system. The data of who actually buys AMD processors would be very interesting indeed. My perspective from the last post is more about mind share. I still can't get over the fact that people expected any different from this release. The chip is virtually identical clock for clock (swaying to both sides depending) to a Core 2 and as of right now anyone who is budget minded would be extremely well served to consider the AMD options. They're simply rather good.

I tried pointing this out on HardOCP's forum, that motherboard prices in the mATX form factor for Intel based systems are just crazy. For instance, I bought a Asus board for $70 that includes every feature you could ever need, it is awesome. Comparably a G45 or GeForce 9300/nForce 730i based board of equal features start at like $120. That $50 difference on a budget minded build is pretty insane when you think about it. That is the difference between a HD4850 and HD4870, so if you're a gamer on a budget you have a lot to decide if you want a mATX system (which I did).