AMD Phenom II X4 Model 940 @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
54,432
AMD Phenom II X4 Model 940 Black Edition Processor - We have been waiting for this CPU, but hardly with bated breath. While we had high hopes, the Phenom II is already waning in enthusiast circles. We pit it against the Intel Core 2 Quad and Intel Core i7, clock for clock. Isn't that what we really want to see?

The AMD Phenom II still simply does not best the Intel Core 2 Quad on a clock per clock basis. I think enthusiasts were at least expecting for AMD to pull up a bit beyond Core 2 given Intel’s recent leap ahead with Core i7. No matter our expectations, the Phenom II does not have what it takes to be a champion.
Click to expand...
 
This is a very disappointing show by AMD. I was initially holding off on building an i7 system just to see what AMD had up its sleeve. Fortunately for me, but sadly for AMD, I will yet again be using an Intel processor.

These results really show how well made the Core 2 platform really is. I think what is hurting AMD is the price. If they are pricing it at just a notch under the i7 920, and if you compare benchmarks, there is just no competition. However, they probably won't be able to lower them that much since they probably invested a ton of money into Phenom II.

However, these are just fine for those looking for a non-gaming oriented system.
 
Wow, I was expecting it to at least run a tiny bit faster than Core 2 chips... I guess not.
 
i said this in the other thread, but i'll say it here too: i love the new review style/format you guys used for this processor.....
 
I'm disappointed. That's all. I can't say I'm surprised, but I'm still disappointed. AMD needs to get off their asses, stop smoking whatever is making them think that they're putting out good chips, and actually come out with something that can compete.
 
eric66 said:
guru is much more posistive http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/22
Click to expand...

techreport is also much more positive......

at the very least, this Phenom 2 launch will make life much easier for the AMD fanboys, who will probably be getting alot less crap for owning a PH2 than they were for owning PH1s

*as an aside, my girlfriend is running an AM2+ system, and in time, i can absolutely see myself buying a PH2 for her to upgrade her current 2.3ghz X2
 
aZn_plyR said:
Wow, I was expecting it to at least run a tiny bit faster than Core 2 chips... I guess not.
Click to expand...

Which is strange. TechReport gives a much more favorable review, and places the 940 has being roughly equal to the Q9400:

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16147

--In the Phenom II, AMD has produced a chip that comes strikingly close to duplicating the performance of Intel's mid-range Core 2 Quad processors, the Q9300 and Q9400.--

Guru3D pretty much comes to the same conclusion:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/1

--See, when you place things in perspective, the $278 Phenom II X4 940 is here and there getting in close vicinity of that Core i7 920 processor. But let's compare to the Core 2 series for a moment. One thing we can definitely state is that Phenom II's performance is now comparable to the mid- to more high-end Core 2 Quad performance levels.--

So now I'm wondering whether something is up with [H]'s testing platform or not.
 
Why do all three systems have such different amount of ram? The PhenomII has 2gb, the C2E has 4, and the i7 has 6gb. I would think this would contribute to some differences, yes?
 
lol it does kinda seem this review was a bit lackluster in the enthusiasm department. Eh for $275 there's really no reason to buy one over a Core 2 Quad. Oh well AMD my next build will be an intel quad.
 
Modred189 said:
Why do all three systems have such different amount of ram? The PhenomII has 2gb, the C2E has 4, and the i7 has 6gb. I would think this would contribute to some differences, yes?
Click to expand...

im dont like to use the term "canned" but this benchmark is...canned.
 
Modred189 said:
Why do all three systems have such different amount of ram? The PhenomII has 2gb, the C2E has 4, and the i7 has 6gb. I would think this would contribute to some differences, yes?
Click to expand...

2GB of RAM in a tri SLI system? Come on [H], I thought that you guys are better than that. :mad:
 
Really well done review, like how you guys did the bound and unbound portions
 
alg7_munif said:
What suprises me most is the gaming number, they are not consistent with this benchmark here:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTU4MCwyLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

The Core i7 review makes me want to stick with my 3.2GHz C2Q but the PII review makes me think that Core i7 is much faster than the C2Q.
Click to expand...

I would suggest NEVER comparing data that is three months apart. Trust me, I do not go back and compare. I verify results currently.

Modred189 said:
Why do all three systems have such different amount of ram? The PhenomII has 2gb, the C2E has 4, and the i7 has 6gb. I would think this would contribute to some differences, yes?
Click to expand...

alg7_munif said:
2GB of RAM in a tri SLI system? Come on [H], I thought that you guys are better than that. :mad:
Click to expand...

Yes, they have different amounts of RAM. NONE of our test are dependent on RAM volumes and never come close to getting into a cacheing situation. I thought about ramping the Phenom II up to 4GB, but it would have likely made it a bit slower in the scoring. I used 4GB in the C2 system because that is the same stick we have standardized testing on all the i7 systems. The Corsair 1600 DDR3. Had we gone with 2GB in the Core 2 we would have likely gotten a bit faster scores, at least that has been my experience.

The one thing that concerned me, that I bought up in the review, but did not go into detail on, is the ability or lack there of, of the Phenom II and 1066 DDR2 speeds. I have not had any trouble with K8 or Phenom and 1066 memory. I could not get the Phenom II systems to do . Not sure if it was Phenom II or the board, but I have done 1066 on that board before with the same RAM and Phenom.
 
1.65V? Wonder if it's the motherboard, because that's way too high; most people get by on 1.5V for a ~3.6 stable OC, even with the 920's.
 
Dodger02WS6 said:
I only have 2 Questions...

Did you guys cash that check from Intel Yet?

And, for the sake of an enlightened discussion, why call it a clock for clock comparison if it's really about the platform? I see no mention of the enviroment used, no mention of Motherboards, Ram type, Ram Speed, ect. Basically your test controls aren't there to justify your claim.

Also, why isn't there any equal priced Intel chips used? If I have a budget for a 275.00 CPU WTF do I care how A Phenom 2 compares to the two Highest priced Intel CPU's on the market? I Don't. Throw in a Q6600, Q9450, Q9550 and even a Q9650 on the high side and tell it like it is.

I used to respect you guys, but this is garbage.

And for the record, I Run an Intel X6800 on and EVGA 780i so don't yell fanboi...
Click to expand...

It took all the way till post 15! I think that is a record.

And obviously this person did not RTFA. Otherwise he would know the answers to his questions.

Please, if you are going to attack our integrity, at least read all the pages. Thanks.
 
I might buy one to swap into my X2 build but this is definately disapointing. I sure won't be rushing to buy one at top dollar though.
 
AceCR42 said:
1.65V? Wonder if it's the motherboard, because that's way too high; most people get by on 1.5V for a ~3.6 stable OC, even with the 920's.
Click to expand...


That was 1.65v core voltage with the Phenom II, not the Core i7. The ci7 965 I think did 3.8GHz at stock voltage IIRC
 
Dodger02WS6 said:
I skimmed over the first page and realized my mistake, hence forth I edited my post, However I stand by the Platform comment, all you've really done is compare platforms, not CPU's, Compare the Phenom 2 to it's intended compitation, a Q9550 and then tell us AMD still Sux, it's a much more accurate test.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your thoughts, they are noted. We will have a Phenom II article with DDR3 for you soon. I would not hold my breath for that breakthrough though. Memory bandwidth is not Phenom II's problem.
 
Lost Circuits review of the 940 tests it against a pretty wide range of processors (enough to satisfy Dodger02WS6 I imagine):

http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=42

They also end with a favorable result. They, like TR and Guru3D, place it in the same territory as the Core 2 Quads. Though, L.C. looks to mostly use the 65nm Core 2 Extreme versions, which according to their benchmarks the 940 does very well against.
 
....interesting.

I know not all chips overclock the same. But just so anyone who reads the ensuing pages knows, there are others who have already done well with their X4 940's compared to the review here. No I wont disclaim the review since that is the best there chip could do but SoF at XS is running at 3.99 with 1.505v, which, is clearly better than Kyle's 940 results. Fanboy or not for AMD or INTEL, i hope everyone is smart enough to take in a broad range of results before posting somewhat childish comments.

I think it performs well against intels C2Q's and especially when you take into account other results like SoF here
 
King of Heroes said:
Which is strange. TechReport gives a much more favorable review, and places the 940 has being roughly equal to the Q9400:

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16147

--In the Phenom II, AMD has produced a chip that comes strikingly close to duplicating the performance of Intel's mid-range Core 2 Quad processors, the Q9300 and Q9400.--

Guru3D pretty much comes to the same conclusion:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/1

--See, when you place things in perspective, the $278 Phenom II X4 940 is here and there getting in close vicinity of that Core i7 920 processor. But let's compare to the Core 2 series for a moment. One thing we can definitely state is that Phenom II's performance is now comparable to the mid- to more high-end Core 2 Quad performance levels.--

So now I'm wondering whether something is up with [H]'s testing platform or not.
Click to expand...
Kyle tested clock for clock, whereas those reviews tested all the chips at stock speed. I think his testing method is actually more relevant, since enthusiasts will be overclocking their CPUs anyway, so it's more pertinent to know what the relative performance of these chips is. The actual stock speeds aren't really significant, so this provides a more even basis for comparison.
Dodger02WS6 said:
I skimmed over the first page and realized my mistake, hence forth I edited my post, However I stand by the Platform comment, all you've really done is compare platforms, not CPU's, Compare the Phenom 2 to it's intended compitation, a Q9550 and then tell us AMD still Sux, it's a much more accurate test.
Click to expand...
The tests showed that the Core 2 Quad CPU was faster clock-for-clock compared to the Phenom 2. When you consider that, it isn't necessary to compare the 940 to a Q9550, since it is already clear that the C2Q's relative performance is higher than that of the Phenom II.
 
Btw I would suggest [H] to invest more time evaluating this CPU. I'm sure that most [H] readers are not the people who are buying the latest and greatest hardware but most of them are people who buy a much cheaper hardware and push it to the limit.

What you should do is compare the platforms:

LGA 1366 + i7 920 + DDR3: expensive but future proof.
LGA 775 + C2Q + DDR2: cheaper but a dead end.
AM2+ +PII + DDR2: cheaper and slower but still have an upgrade path.

What I would like to know is how easily the platforms can be pushed to its limit and how is the performance at their limits. I doubt that people would stick 3x GTX 280 into a PII platform.
 
eric66 said:
guru is much more posistive http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/22
Click to expand...

From reading that conclusion I will have fully state that I think he drank the AMD Koolaid being handed out by the PR reps. That is the same exact "why it is so great" story I heard from AMD.

AMD is back on track for sure. Now before we really dig into the conclusion, let's get one thing out of the way first. Make no mistake, AMD is still a step behind Intel.
Click to expand...

Back on track for sure? Back on track for not catching up with Intel's last generation CPU from a year ago? Shit.
 
well, i think its funny, cause all can do 3.8 ghz with a decent air cooling.

3.4 ghz, lol ? say 3.6 atleast.

how much does QX9770 retail for.
How much does a Core7 platform retail for ?

performance per dollar is still very very good.

I still havnt seen others say, that nothings good except core 7 like you guys are hinting at, and to be honest, 95% is still buying core 2 quad cause of the price tag, its more worth giving more money in videocards.
 
Zero82z said:
The tests showed that the Core 2 Quad CPU was faster clock-for-clock compared to the Phenom 2. When you consider that, it isn't necessary to compare the 940 to a Q9550, since it is already clear that the C2Q's relative performance is higher than that of the Phenom II.
Click to expand...

True. I guess the real comparison is with the price/performance. The 940 Black is about the same price as the Q9400 or thereabout. I haven't dealt with a Q9400 before so I can't say how well it overclocks but an overclocker will be interested in the peak performance of both of these chips. It might just end up being whether you get lucky and get a "good" 940 that goes 4.0Ghz (probably roughly the same as a Q9400 @3.7?) like the one at XS or a poor one that only goes ~3.6 or so.

I think if everything is stock, 940@3.0 is about the Q9400 @ 2.67.
 
alg7_munif said:
Btw I would suggest [H] to invest more time evaluating this CPU.
Click to expand...

Sorry but we will not be spending the resources to do that currently. I have not seen anything to make me think my evaluation was even a bit off. In fact, some of the things these other sites are saying leave me flabbergasted. And I am not flabbergasted too often. :eek: That said I can show you were many have thought we were too harsh in the past, and I have yet to see were we needed to revisit our conclusions.

We will give it another look when it gets its DDR3 shoes, which I think will make no goddamn relative difference in the performance, but we want to know for sure.

If you see value in a Phenom II system, more power to you. (but not literally) ;)
 
Zero82z said:
Kyle tested clock for clock, whereas those reviews tested all the chips at stock speed. I think his testing method is actually more relevant, since enthusiasts will be overclocking their CPUs anyway, so it's more pertinent to know what the relative performance of these chips is. The actual stock speeds aren't really significant, so this provides a more even basis for comparison.

The tests showed that the Core 2 Quad CPU was faster clock-for-clock compared to the Phenom 2. When you consider that, it isn't necessary to compare the 940 to a Q9550, since it is already clear that the C2Q's relative performance is higher than that of the Phenom II.
Click to expand...

That is exactly how I see it. None of you guys give a damn about the stock speed of these CPUs. You want to know how far you can comfortably push them (and some of you uncomfortably) and what returns you will get.
 
a123456 said:
True. I guess the real comparison is with the price/performance. The 940 Black is about the same price as the Q9400 or thereabout. I haven't dealt with a Q9400 before so I can't say how well it overclocks but an overclocker will be interested in the peak performance of both of these chips. It might just end up being whether you get lucky and get a "good" 940 that goes 4.0Ghz (probably roughly the same as a Q9400 @3.7?) like the one at XS or a poor one that only goes ~3.6 or so.

I think if everything is stock, 940@3.0 is about the Q9400 @ 2.67.
Click to expand...

The Q9400s actually all use a revision of the Yorkfield core that is equivalent to the E0 core except with half the cache, so a typical CPU will be able to hit 3.8GHz with ease, and possibly 4GHz if it's paired with a decent board that can handle the high FSB speed. When you consider the fact that a Q9400 at 3.8GHz will have superior performance to a Phenom II at 3.8GHz, and for a similar platform cost, I don't see how the Phenom II provides any sort of superior value. In fact, I would put forth that a Q9400 setup would actually give you more bang for the buck.
 
well it beats a q6600 clock for clock, its something, and the price tag is just <3.

and hardocp, if the gaming scores aint clock for clock, its really easy to clock ht link, and nb speeds are showing at 3ghz+ now.
my benchmarks say 2% increase per 200 mhz ht link atleast :p

Core 7 doesnt represent value, yet.
Core 7 is expensive.
Core 7 doesnt overclock well over 3.8 ghz.

Phenom 2 clocks very well with water, some friends do over 4.5 ghz, which is pretty good, and motherboard price, memory price, take those into account and then it suddenly represent a way better value than comparing just the cpu's.

Motherboard, use whatever motherboard that's out there, as long as it has SB750 and 790GX or 790FX.

and well, amd never targeted core 7 to start with, they're after the core 2 series, cause thats where the most money is i think.
I havnt heard anyone say i need core 7 performance.

And speaking of cpu's, my friend still runs an old x2 @ 2800 mhz, have he had any issues running his games, nope, just using a good videocard.
Ive never seen any of his maxed out games lagg, do you really need a core 7, i think not.
They are very impressive indeed, their memory performance is also very very good.
But does everyone need it? looking at youre graphs, all the games went smooth.

Far cry 2 2560x1600 gaming wasnt an issue, do you really need all that more?
i didnt have much issues with gaming on a x2 4400 + S939 rig with the recent games so i dunno :p
 
Performance was about what I expected. My disappointment is the price. They need to be about $35 to $50 cheaper in order to be really attractive. At the present price I will stay with my Q6600.

My only comment on the review is that it seems a bit ludicrous to compare the $275 AMD chip against a $564 i7 and a $1013 Core2. I realize that this is an "enthusiast" site but not every enthusiast has the means to have the top of the line, cutting edge technology. Many have to support families not just computer systems. Perhaps a Q9400 or Q9550 should have been included in the comparison for your more fiscally responsible (or impaired) readers.
 
Sometimes I get the impression that all of the HardOCP reviews are done from the point of view that all the readers are ready to drop $3,000 at any given time. Anyone who follows hardware rumors and isn't completely biased was very prepared for these results. We've known for months that Phenom II for the most part is Phenom with a bit of tweaks, as has been shown that almost always leads itself to a faster but new architecture fast levels, and again that's what we have here. So placing this system into a 3-way SLI system isn't exactly dishonest, but it puts it a bit outside of the realistic window it should be placed.

The Phenom II isn't going to be purchased by those looking at 3-way SLI configuration, not even two way. Instead they're looking for bargins, people are going to check out these processors to see what is the best system they can build in the $800 to $1,000 range. Some might be more gaming focused, some might be more overall, it just depends. But $1,000 on graphics hardware is never going to happen with a reasonable person. It just won't happen.

I'd really love to see a Core 2 Quad Q8200 or Q8400 vs the low end Phenom II. That is a very fair comparison. Very similar priced processors that are likely going to be placed in very similar situations. Those are the sweet spots, maybe in throw in the Q6600 because it is still a popular choice (high multiplier for the OC, etc). But the Core i7 is in another level, another league of performance. People are looking to field a AA or AAA team here, not a rival to the Yankees.

Maybe a perspective is just different. I dream of a Core i7 system, but I don't have the need nor free cash to justifiably build one. So 3-way SLI systems do nothing, and trying to get that "limit" on real world gaming isn't a game I particularly enjoy. Just what I think...
 
RAMPAGEOH said:
Performance was about what I expected. My disappointment is the price. They need to be about $35 to $50 cheaper in order to be really attractive. At the present price I will stay with my Q6600.

My only comment on the review is that it seems a bit ludicrous to compare the $275 AMD chip against a $564 i7 and a $1013 Core2. I realize that this is an "enthusiast" site but not every enthusiast has the means to have the top of the line, cutting edge technology. Many have to support families not just computer systems. Perhaps a Q9400 or Q9550 should have been included in the comparison for your more fiscally responsible (or impaired) readers.
Click to expand...


True, in fact, you can build a system that almost plays all maxed out at the price of an qx9770.
 
I feel like I bought a lemon using the phenom platform. Would the drop in upgrade from a 9600BE to the phenom 2 BE be a substantial performance difference? Or should I just hold off another year when I can ask my wife if I can finally go ahead with a new enthusiast build?
 
notalent420 said:
This is a very disappointing show by AMD. I was initially holding off on building an i7 system just to see what AMD had up its sleeve. Fortunately for me, but sadly for AMD, I will yet again be using an Intel processor.

These results really show how well made the Core 2 platform really is. I think what is hurting AMD is the price. If they are pricing it at just a notch under the i7 920, and if you compare benchmarks, there is just no competition. However, they probably won't be able to lower them that much since they probably invested a ton of money into Phenom II.

However, these are just fine for those looking for a non-gaming oriented system.
Click to expand...

i too was holding out for the i7 because of AMD as i wanted it to compete with i7 and make the prices go down. well my decision is made up. i7 it is then and will b top dog for at least this whole year. cpu's just dont increase in technology has fast as graphics cards. heck it took 2 years for intel to come up with the i7
 
Such language from Kyle... sheesh....

Anyhow, doesn't it seem like the performance improvements gained by increasing the clockspeed by 17% on both the Phenom-II and the C2Q are a little small, especially considering the fact that you say that these systems are CPU-bound? If that's the case, shouldn't they both scale almost linearly with clockspeed? As the data shows, the Phenom-II only gains a 4.6% performance increase from the overclock and the C2Q only gains 9% at 640x480, which should be the resolution most affected by the CPU overclock. If anything, the lack of scaling should indicate that there's a bottleneck somewhere else.

*EDIT* This is looking purely at the FC2 results, of course.
 
marshmallow said:
I feel like I bought a lemon using the phenom platform. Would the drop in upgrade from a 9600BE to the phenom 2 BE be a substantial performance difference? Or should I just hold off another year when I can ask my wife if I can finally go ahead with a new enthusiast build?
Click to expand...

Well, can you do the drop in? Not all motherboard manufacturers are offering the needed BIOS update and you need the right chipset, socket, and available power regulation. But otherwise we're talking near Core 2 levels of performance in the Phenom II which are yes, substantially better than your aged Phenom.
 
Performance scaling on phenom 1 -2 is 1:1 with increase of clock speed.

meaning.
800->1600 mhz is twice as good.
1600-3200 is twice as good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top