Phenom 2 965 is out

T

TheCommander

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 2, 2003
Messages
2,999
Just saw it at newegg. When can we expect the prices on the other AMD CPUs to go down?

On another note, what's the difference between the Black edition vs the non-Black edition?
 
the black edition has unlocked Multiplier you would only need to rasie the Multiplier and with out overclocking the fsb

The non black edition has locked Multiplier which you would have to overclock the fsb
 
Jospeh said:
140W TDP? Looks like AMD is really struggling here...
Click to expand...


just means that the 955 was the limit of the architectures efficiency.. so that tells us the 965 is just a factory overclocked 955.. because a 955 @ 3.4ghz comes out to 140w.. so if anyones thinking of buying this for better overclocking over the 955, dont waste your money.. lol
 
Wow, that 140 TDP hurts. Looks like the best cpu to get is the 955 @ $199 and oc it.
 
Rumors are there will be a 975 next month @ 3.6GHz I'm guessing. New stepping maybe? Still blows the old Phenom 140W out of the water though.
 
AMD recently drop the tdp of the x4 945 from 125w to 95w. I see this x4 965 doing the samething and becoming 125w part in a few weeks.
 
lt_shiro said:
AMD recently drop the tdp of the x4 945 from 125w to 95w. I see this x4 965 doing the samething and becoming 125w part in a few weeks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, seems like they try to get some sort of supply out there while they stock up on chips that bin with better efficiency.

I have to wonder if AMD might release a 4GHz stock clocked Phenom II at some point, possibly after a die shrink?
 
lt_shiro said:
AMD recently drop the tdp of the x4 945 from 125w to 95w. I see this x4 965 doing the samething and becoming 125w part in a few weeks.
Click to expand...

That's how AMD usually works, though I'm guessing it will be a bit longer than a few weeks.

The 9950 was also lowered from 140W to 125W once yields improved. Even the Windsor 3 GHz chip was lowered from 125W to 95W. The 45nm process is still pretty new to AMD, but I would still have to say it's scaling very well and doesn't seem as leaky as their 65nm process. They're getting almost a full extra GHz and packing more transistors, at the same TDP.

I would expect the 3.4 GHz chip to drop to 125W in a few months. I'm also guessing the 3.6 GHz chip might launch at a slightly higher price point initially so they can afford to cherry pick 140W CPUs. A 160W TDP would be too much for a retail product.
 
Last edited:
lt_shiro said:
I guessing they would increase number of cores with the next die shrink.
Click to expand...


my guess is that we will see a phenom II x6 by the 1st quarter '10.. since that seems to be about the norm.. shanghai was released as an opteron and then the phenom II came out.. they both use the exact same architecture.. it would be nice if they did release an x6.. mmm.. 6 physical core multi-threaded powa!.. screw hyperthreading..
 
Hell I remember the Opty 165 I was running until a year or so ago was either 125 or 140w stock, and oc'd to 2.7 it was definitely way above this. It is important to recognize that they are still making huge strides even though they are in 2nd place.
 
Are any sites getting these clocked to over 4ghz? The few I've glanced few show them stopping just short with crazy temps...
 
Shy of 4 GHz is clearly the limit of this architecture (at the 140W TDP, at any rate). I'd like to know why there is one significant hardware site that hasn't been ready with a review?

And has anyone noticed a number of other review sites using an AM2+ platform to review this chip? The bandwidth difference does impact its comparison value, especially if DDR3 1600 is used, which most half-way decent AM3 boards are capable of.
 
Pepsiennis said:
Shy of 4 GHz is clearly the limit of this architecture (at the 140W TDP, at any rate). I'd like to know why there is one significant hardware site that hasn't been ready with a review?

And has anyone noticed a number of other review sites using an AM2+ platform to review this chip? The bandwidth difference does impact its comparison value, especially if DDR3 1600 is used, which most half-way decent AM3 boards are capable of.
Click to expand...

I think this is because of price points. This chip can't compete against the i7. It can only compete against a C2D or C2Q platform and only on a DDR2 platform. If you say DDR3 then the cost difference between an i7 and a Phenom II gets really small, especially if you include the microcenter deal. Or at least that's what I've gathered of thier logic.
 
might wait till die shrink to get the heat down but then again this might keep the house warm and toasty in the winter months to come.:D
 
vengence said:
I think this is because of price points. This chip can't compete against the i7. It can only compete against a C2D or C2Q platform and only on a DDR2 platform. If you say DDR3 then the cost difference between an i7 and a Phenom II gets really small, especially if you include the microcenter deal. Or at least that's what I've gathered of thier logic.
Click to expand...

In reviews in which the used an AM3 platform and DDR3 1600, it faired equally with the Core i7 920 (for example Neoseeker or OC Club). Naturally there are any number of manipulatable variables, but it seems fairly consistent that at the variables I mentioned earlier, it does seem to hold ground with the i7 920. It'd be nice to see a usual impartial [H] review.
 
TheCommander said:
Just saw it at newegg. When can we expect the prices on the other AMD CPUs to go down?

On another note, what's the difference between the Black edition vs the non-Black edition?
Click to expand...

Gulkor said:
the black edition has unlocked Multiplier you would only need to rasie the Multiplier and with out overclocking the fsb

The non black edition has locked Multiplier which you would have to overclock the fsb
Click to expand...

Precisely. To add on to that topic, overclocking through multipliers is your best bet with the Phenom and Phenom II series CPUs. The motherboards themselves don't overclock very well when using Phenom/Phenom II CPUs. They overclock far better using older Athlon X2 CPUs, so I can't say the issue is so much with the motherboards or chipsets, but rather the issue is that the Phenom CPUs just don't handle Hypertransport/Bus overclocking very well. Most boards I've worked with won't break a 50MHz or so increase in bus speed and even then it takes tons of work and settings adjustment to do it. With multiplier adjustments and some minimal HT clock speed increases you can fully utilize the potential of the processor. In other words enthusiasts should look for Black Edition CPUs while non-overclockers, and OEMs would probably be just as well served by the standard variant.
 
Pepsiennis said:
In reviews in which the used an AM3 platform and DDR3 1600, it faired equally with the Core i7 920 (for example Neoseeker or OC Club). Naturally there are any number of manipulatable variables, but it seems fairly consistent that at the variables I mentioned earlier, it does seem to hold ground with the i7 920. It'd be nice to see a usual impartial [H] review.
Click to expand...


I feel like the oc club review just makes the i7 look that much better. The 920 at stock speeds holds its own pretty well. However in a couple of those games, it would have been nice to have a better gpu. Overall I feel that review is pretty weak. I guess it's realistic in that they use a more mainstream gpu, but if you're testing which cpu is better you need to use the strongest gpu possible, otherwise you get gpu bottlenecked, and it makes results artificially close, Had that review used a 295 I think the results would have been way different.

All that review shows is that if you are totally unwilling to oc and want a gtx260 it doesn't matter what cpu you buy.
 
Looks to be a decent chip. As expected, it doesn't beat the i7's, but it seems better than any of the Intel Socket 775 chips.
 
Unabomber said:
Looks to be a decent chip. As expected, it doesn't beat the i7's, but it seems better than any of the Intel Socket 775 chips.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I'd call it better. Many LGA775 CPUs can hit 4.0GHz+ and usually the Phenom and Phenom II require a clock speed advantage to best the 45nm LGA775 CPUs. Without one it won't be decisively better in most tests.
 
Last edited:
I think the only reason they did this was now they have the highest stock clock quad core processor. So far this does not have anymore headroom than the 955.

On a side note, the MC in Westmont, IL (outside of Chicago) had the 955 for 189.99 this past Saturday. :)
 
Pepsiennis said:
In reviews in which the used an AM3 platform and DDR3 1600, it faired equally with the Core i7 920 (for example Neoseeker or OC Club). Naturally there are any number of manipulatable variables, but it seems fairly consistent that at the variables I mentioned earlier, it does seem to hold ground with the i7 920. It'd be nice to see a usual impartial [H] review.
Click to expand...

I'll await [H]ard's review before I make a call too.

OC club said "the Phenom II X4 965 is close in some aspects but overall it was slower than the Intel chip(stock 920)". Neoseeker said "but it[965] simply could not manage to beat the Core i7 920"

Tack on how easy people are getting D0 920s to over 4Ghz vs the stock of 2.66 which they were testing at and compare that to going from 3.4 to 4.0 (50% vs 17%) well.... so far color me not impressed. We'll have to wait for the black version to see how well it does on multiplier overclocking instead of bus ocing.

However, this should have a good place in the OEM market. Lets face it, almost none of us have overclocked machines at work. Frankly, the OEM market is bigger than the enthusiast market, so perhaps it's not a bad move by AMD.
 
vengence said:
I'll await [H]ard's review before I make a call too.

OC club said "the Phenom II X4 965 is close in some aspects but overall it was slower than the Intel chip(stock 920)". Neoseeker said "but it[965] simply could not manage to beat the Core i7 920"

Tack on how easy people are getting D0 920s to over 4Ghz vs the stock of 2.66 which they were testing at and compare that to going from 3.4 to 4.0 (50% vs 17%) well.... so far color me not impressed. We'll have to wait for the black version to see how well it does on multiplier overclocking instead of bus ocing.

However, this should have a good place in the OEM market. Lets face it, almost none of us have overclocked machines at work. Frankly, the OEM market is bigger than the enthusiast market, so perhaps it's not a bad move by AMD.
Click to expand...

I was able to get to 4.19GHz with my C0 Core i7 920 with ease. I could push it farther as it will post much higher, but I need watercooling to keep it cool enough. (I'm probably going to go back to water cooling at this point.) In any case the Phenom II X4 965 sounds like more of the same with a slight bump in stock clock speeds. Without much more clock speed overhead it won't be competing with Core i7 in the near future.
 
Dan_D said:
I was able to get to 4.19GHz with my C0 Core i7 920 with ease. I could push it farther as it will post much higher, but I need watercooling to keep it cool enough. (I'm probably going to go back to water cooling at this point.) In any case the Phenom II X4 965 sounds like more of the same with a slight bump in stock clock speeds. Without much more clock speed overhead it won't be competing with Core i7 in the near future.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if I just said that I'm sure someone would have called me an intel fanboy. ;)
 
vengence said:
Yeah, but if I just said that I'm sure someone would have called me an intel fanboy. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't even worry about that. When AMD had the better performing products I was called an AMD fan boy. While Intel has the better performing products I get called an Intel fan boy. I simply go with whatever offers the best performance at the time. I don't give a ton of thought to price unless the gulf between product A and product B is too extreme for my current financial situation.

Back in the 486 days I knew AMD and Cyrix processors were vastly inferior to their Intel counteparts but I couldn't afford Intel CPUs. So I used Cyrix or AMD chips instead. Other than that I've gone with whatever performed best at the time. I've had plenty of processors from both companies.
 
Dan_D said:
I was able to get to 4.19GHz with my C0 Core i7 920 with ease. I could push it farther as it will post much higher, but I need watercooling to keep it cool enough. (I'm probably going to go back to water cooling at this point.) In any case the Phenom II X4 965 sounds like more of the same with a slight bump in stock clock speeds. Without much more clock speed overhead it won't be competing with Core i7 in the near future.
Click to expand...

From the enthusiast POV you are entirely right; but not all enthusiasts can afford an i7 platform setup, if you include GPU(s). Taking into account many of the limitations real/average enthusiasts face, the AM3 platform yet has several attractions. Not the least of which is the fact it isn't such an easy shot: it takes a bit more effort. To a true enthusiast, this factor is still attractive, even if the end result is not clock for clock the same as another platform. I'll take solving a challenge over raw MHz any day.
 
Pepsiennis said:
From the enthusiast POV you are entirely right; but not all enthusiasts can afford an i7 platform setup, if you include GPU(s). Taking into account many of the limitations real/average enthusiasts face, the AM3 platform yet has several attractions. Not the least of which is the fact it isn't such an easy shot: it takes a bit more effort. To a true enthusiast, this factor is still attractive, even if the end result is not clock for clock the same as another platform. I'll take solving a challenge over raw MHz any day.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't. It is the end result which I desire. Whatever gets me the best end result is what I go for. Trust me, when you overclock as many different boards and CPUs as I do you pray for the simple ones to come across your desk. Tweaking 53 different settings in various combinations gets old really fast. When I can take an ASUS LGA1366 board and hit 4.0GHz+ on a Core i7 by adjusting 6 settings I'm very pleased. I'd rather spend that time playing games and enjoying the performance I got rather than spend a week just tweaking the damn thing and making it stable.

Then again if I only built one machine every two years, or I only upgraded mine once or twice a year I could see the attraction. Still there is no way I'd take the slower setup just because it would take me longer to tweak it. Screw that.
 
If only AMD was able to surprise everyone and release the X4 965 as a X6 965.
Would blow everyone away.
 
Dan_D said:
I wouldn't. It is the end result which I desire. Whatever gets me the best end result is what I go for. Trust me, when you overclock as many different boards and CPUs as I do you pray for the simple ones to come across your desk. Tweaking 53 different settings in various combinations gets old really fast. When I can take an ASUS LGA1366 board and hit 4.0GHz+ on a Core i7 by adjusting 6 settings I'm very pleased. I'd rather spend that time playing games and enjoying the performance I got rather than spend a week just tweaking the damn thing and making it stable.

Then again if I only built one machine every two years, or I only upgraded mine once or twice a year I could see the attraction. Still there is no way I'd take the slower setup just because it would take me longer to tweak it. Screw that.
Click to expand...

As a guy who is on the 2 year cycle, I'd much rather have full adjustability of every last setting to tweak out every last ounce of power. Not that I need every last ounce of power, but because I see that as fun. But there is a limit to that fun. If you're adjusting 53 settings, that is a bit much.
 
vengence said:
As a guy who is on the 2 year cycle, I'd much rather have full adjustability of every last setting to tweak out every last ounce of power. Not that I need every last ounce of power, but because I see that as fun. But there is a limit to that fun. If you're adjusting 53 settings, that is a bit much.
Click to expand...

I upgrade relatively frequently and I rarely have the time to spend on my own hardware tweaking it too much. I spent more time on this current rig in regard to tweaking than I have on the last four machines I've had previously. Still the EVGA X58 3X SLI Classified was fairly easy to deal with, though more complex to overclock than some other X58 boards I've seen. (Then again those boards weren't as capable as this one is either.) Its fun but like most American's I prefer instant or near instant gratification. I want to be "on the road" with the fastest possible performance in the least amount of time if possible.Though I do actually enjoy building the systems, managing my wires and tubing more than I enjoy tweaking BIOS settings. That is part of the reason I upgrade as often as I do.
 
Dan_D said:
I upgrade relatively frequently and I rarely have the time to spend on my own hardware tweaking it too much. I spent more time on this current rig in regard to tweaking than I have on the last four machines I've had previously. Still the EVGA X58 3X SLI Classified was fairly easy to deal with, though more complex to overclock than some other X58 boards I've seen. (Then again those boards weren't as capable as this one is either.) Its fun but like most American's I prefer instant or near instant gratification. I want to be "on the road" with the fastest possible performance in the least amount of time if possible.Though I do actually enjoy building the systems, managing my wires and tubing more than I enjoy tweaking BIOS settings. That is part of the reason I upgrade as often as I do.
Click to expand...

I'm sensing we could work out quite a deal if I tweak the bios and you do cable management. ;)
 
Dan_D said:
Back in the 486 days I knew AMD and Cyrix processors were vastly inferior to their Intel
Click to expand...

Cyrix 486 DX CPU's were certainly inferior in the integer department, slightly superior in the floating point department (FasMath was actually a good creation).

AMD 486 CPU's were essentially clones of the Intel ones (with the exception of the DX4 CPU's), and performed identically to their Intel counterparts.

IBM 486 CPU's were also Intel clones (licensed, no lawsuits), and performed identically to Intel ones, but they did have a neat chip, called the Blue Lightning (the ones based on the true 486 DX), which was superior to the Intel ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top