AMD Phenom II X4 Model 940 @ [H]

[Atech]

I agree with these two points.

I'd also like to see your assessment of power consumption and performance per watt. I'm guessing that this is another area where Intel is in the lead.

Read the fucking thread:

Briefly back on the 2GB vs 4GB thing, it looks like Far Cry 2 does not exceed 2GB when the built-in benchmarker is used, regardless of settings. But only just... the engine itself uses about ~700-800MB and a bare vista boot sits just under a gig of allocated memory. No difference for the canned runs at 640x480/DX9/low or 1680x1050/DX10/8XAA/Ultra (max of my monitor) for any built-in run going from 2GB to 4GB. This may not apply to the other application suite tests or game tests but FC2 is fine. (Crysis: Warhead is well recognized as using more than 2GB right off of the bat, and it is reflected in the minimum FPS scores in benchmarks)

And of course, right after I swap out some sticks and reboot a few times, I find a similar comparison on CDRinfo.com: http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=24373&PageId=6

Still, I'd be pretty uncomfortable benchmarking a system with less RAM than video memory!

 

[FrgMstr]

I don't know if you can, depends on how tight your budget is. The $50 saved on motherboard could mean the difference between a HD4850 or GTX260/HD4870. That is pretty big.

I would suggest not spending $275 on a Phenom II CPU is you are worried about budget.

...uhhh... no? What, links to 4GB systems vs 2GB systems? You actually want to see that? SNIP

I'll be blunt, I'm totally stalled for words. Kyle your being stupid. SNIP Don’t use quotes for things I did not say! SNIP.

Furthermore, accusing Guru3D of being bought doesn't make you look any more Intelligent. Misuse of the word "stark" doesnt help.

Fair, deal, I should have said the 4GB vs 2GB thing differently. Show me where it makes a difference in our benchmarks. Obviously there are games that will benefit from 4GB, we just don’t happen to use them. You are arguing that a bigger gas tank makes a difference on a trip around the block. It just makes no difference.
I never accused anyone of being bought. You are just making stuff up now.

using a drive with a single 80 gig platter. nice.

Solid State Drives have no platters….

Stalker Clear Sky and Warhead will hitch with just 2 gigs of ram. I had to add another gig on my previous pc because 2 wasnt cutting it.
this site even confirms what i was saying for Warhead. "As our benchmarks reveal, a smooth gameplay with 2 GiByte memory is possible on XP only, on Vista the screen freezes up to one second in some situations."http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...ecial_and_general_info_about_the_game/?page=2

We use neither of those games for CPU. None of the benchmarks we us utilize over 2GB of RAM.

Vista Prechaches the crap out of everything. Its constantly moving stuff in and out of memory, aggressivly, but that doesnt mean that for some reason its not actually using that memory.

We shut down a ton of services on our Vista 64-bit boxes that we test on. It is the only way to get a stable testing environment immediately. It also leaves us with a very slim RAM usage. Our RAM usage at desktop in about 850MB. Obviously we reboot between different benchmarks etc.

The bottom line is 2GB of RAM is more than what is needed for what is covered in today’s article. Now video card evaluation is a LOT different. We moved to 4GB on those system well over a year ago and are now moving to 6GB. I have 18GB of RAM sitting here for that transition now.

"the damn Arabs" is that some sort of racist remark?

This is one of the worst reviews I have ever read on [H] and one of the worst reviews I have read in general. And you arguing that different amounts of memory on each platform don't matter, wow. The difference might not matter, but it may. As pointed out, a quality review removes as many variables as possible. It's common sense and good practice.

But I expect you to pull a fit, probably ban me, use several 4 letter words and claim how you know better than the "payed off" sites that are showing Phenom II is a much more favourable light.

Uh, did you see how much money the Arabs invested in AMD? What do you want me to call them? Arab Non-Americans?

It may be the worst one you have ever read, but it still is dead on. And I will be vindicated again as time goes on. I always am. Just need to balls to tell the brutal truth that a lot of folks do not like to hear.

i think the reason why people dont like your reviews is because other reviews dont seem to review the stuff the way you do it.

i like the way you review stuff. you do it the right way and tell it has it is with no suger coating. most other review sites actually get paid by nvidia or whoever to say something positive about their product while you guys just tell it has it is.

keep reviewing the way you do and let all the haterz waste their money on this brillent AMD cpu

Thank you sir!

.....

Have youre test methods changed alot, or ????????????????????????


All other reviews i see, there isnt this big diffrence between phenom 940 and qx9770. and the qx9770 and core 7 in games.

Hehe, you are comparing single GTX 280 GPU to 3-Way SLI GTX 280. So YES, a LOT has changed, that is the whole point of showing it to you.

Think about this for a second. All you had to do to remain unbiased, prove your point, and eliminate any resentful response on the forum was to keep the test-boxes as closely aligned (in terms of hardware configuration) as possible. Not doing so jeopardizes all of the article's results, and calls into question [H]ardOCP's integrity.
Seriously though, just like a science experiment, the goal should always be to eliminate as many variables as possible... ...and, unfortunately, you've failed in this review to adhere to an unbiased, non-debatable testing methodology.

Thanks for your thoughts, sadly these “variables” don’t exist in the testing. We never use the volume of RAM available. We never come close. But I do understand how some folks can not wrap your heads around that. Let’s fact it, we have never written for the lowest common denominator, and we are not going to start now. I have dumbed it down enough to fit a wider audience. You might as well be arguing that results were taken at different humidities.

The Phenom II X4 940 should have been compared to the i7 920, since they sit at similar price points. The review is clearly biased.

tbreak's review here rightfully compares the Phenom II X4 940 to the Core i7 920. Anandtech's review here also compares the X4 920 and X4 940 against all the major CPUs from Intel.

Then by all means, never read HardOCP again if you think it is biased.

problem here is seems ppl really had high expectation from old tech (mainly kyle ) this looks like r600 to rv670 thing ati did earlier nothing special have done to old arch

Yep, and it did not happen. Lots of fanboy tears today. Some of mine too.

From my point of view and budget which don't allow triple sli this review was pointless.

You do of course realize that 3-Way SLI was only used on the benchmarks of 1 set out of 13? So I am not sure how the rest are useless, but so be it.

not your best work Kyle. I don't think your conclusion is wrong, but how you got there leaves something to be desired.

Hehe, noted.

I’m not the one to shoot the messenger here but how can I refer any of my clients to your website when you insist on checking your intellect at the door and before you give me your “Howard Stern of hardware” speech, I’ll leave you with one word: “Educate”……
In general I get a kick out of your reviews but man- o- man, just wish you could find a better way of expressing yourself, especially when it comes down to belittling and or assuming everybody on your forms is beneath you!

A concerned reader,

Mario

HardOCP is the way it is. If you don’t like the format I would suggest it to no one. If I thought everyone in the forums is beneath me, I would not be taking my time to be here for our readers.

 

[FrgMstr]

It gets to the point and shows the performance of the chip, how is that bad work? Maybe if he would of said some good things about the chip instead of getting straight to the point?

I love the review, for the hype the chip had, and performance it has, im surprised they even published the review after doing testing.

I did have good things to say, just not many!

I actually did think about not publishing a review. After I went through all the FarCry 2 3-Way SLI data, I really wanted to write it. I thought that was very exciting. I originally thought the ci7 would be somewhat neutered in high end gaming and it looks as if that might possibly be very wrong going forward.

 

[Blacklash]

Aww that's just sad. So a 3.0GHz Phenom II is about like a stock Q6600 in gaming. At least they OC decent this time.

 

[inotocracy]

I'm curious why anyone would think the [H] has a bias towards Intel? [H] has a history there and I doubt they plan on repeating it. Article was enlightening and pretty spot on I think, as long as the chip is priced right, it could be a good buy for a lot of people. Insanely raw performance isn't what people always want or need-- its got uses in other areas if the price is right, and might be a good upgrade path for some who already have boards that support it.

Progression is good.. as a gaming chip this obviously isn't the "top dog" but it also isn't the bottom of the barrel, but in other areas of computing it can stand on its own at a cheap price. There is a lot more to computing than gaming

 

[CHAoS_NiNJA]

I'm pretty disappointed in the review. I'm not trying to be rude, but it seemed really unprofessional, and I've always come to [H] for unbiased, professional looking reviews and real world performance. The last thing I want to see if the owner of the site calling things "losers" and such. That just struck a poor cord with me. The entire review made me feel like you were actually angry at the CPU...and I mean, come on, its a piece of silicon and metal. Chill out.

Second, every other site I can find is giving the Phenom II very good reviews. Is it an i7? No. But it plays ball with the mid-high end C2Qs. I'm sure people, like Kyle, won't find that enough because its not "omg the best". Well, this message is directly to you Kyle and I mean it with no disrespect: A lot of your readers aren't here for the best. A lot of people, like me, are here for "best bang for the buck" and thats exactly what the PhII is, a great value. Its not meant to play against the i7, and its not meant to "omg the best", its meant to be a solid CPU with a ton of processing power and it does just that.

I'm building a close friend a machine with an AM2+ mobo and an older 2.4GHz X2 given to us from a friend. Once we can, we'll be able to drop in a Phenom II in there and have an amazing performance increase, going from his lowly Athlon to matching some of the fastest Core 2 CPUs out. Later down the road, he can get a new mobo and RAM and keep his CPU, extending his upgrade path to an entirely new socket. That makes it not only a great, but an amazing value.

As I said, I don't mean to be rude but this review was so doom-n-gloom it just put me off.

 

[maxius]

Kyle you speak the truth as always. Of course the AMD defenders will not hear otherwise but the fact has been confirmed by numerous sites as well as your own. UNDERSTAND PHENOM II IS SLOWER CLOCK FOR CLOCK THAN INTEL CORE 2 QUAD. There....I said it. So to the crybaby's who do not like what Kyle has said, deal with it.

As far Kyle's remarks about Arabs. I do not see any racial connotation with what he said. He is simply describing an corrupt dictatorship in United Arab Emirates which happens to own part of AMD.

Keeping it [H] as always Kyle and great and informative article.

Regards

Racial comments have zero place anywhere regardless of their intent. Amd is a year late but it looks like this to me, they are targeting it at the Q9550 that is well over $300 it is not an i7 killer its not meant to be. Anadtech's is up http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=1

 

[JimmiG]

As a previous Phenom owner, I think the Phenom II is pretty much what I expected.

-Up to 30% faster clock for clock (smaller gains in games, just as with i7)

-Nearly as fast as the old Core2 architecture, clock for clock

-Lower power usage

-"Fixed" Cool n Quiet (the "broken" CnQ of the original Phenom was really Microsoft's fault, not AMD's)

-Higher overclocks

Basically what the original Phenom should have been, one year ago.

I do have a few concerns:

-Not as fast as Intel's current line of i7 CPUs which means it will quickly be pushed into the low-end segment as faster i7's are introduced and the current ones drop in price. AMD needs to do even more to stay competitive in the long term.

-Now is not the right time to buy either a Quad or Phenom II. The true price wars have yet to begin. The Phenom II 940 costs twice as much as my current CPU yet offers nowhere near twice the performance. Maybe by may, A PII 940 will make sense for me.

-Second-rate mobo companies like Asus are unlikely to provide BIOS updates for their first 790FX boards.

 

[Tom128]

Well at least your video card reviews are still useful. Why did you even bother writing this article? lol.

 

[snowysnowcones]

Hey Kyle,
Great review! Thanks for easy, simple benchmarking, but most importantly, thank you for testing clock-for-clock. That's really what I wanted to know, and I hardly ever see any other website do that.

I thought it was a really good, no "sugar-coated" review. Phenom II wasn't as good as some people were expecting, and there's no way around the numbers. Tell it like it is.

Good review [H]

 

[Vermillion]

This thread has been quite entertaining.

I do not think the [H] has been biased at all. They're just telling it how it is from the enthusiast perspective. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them wrong.

I do have a question though. I was under the impression that AMD was moving their CPU's towards the same type of price/performance model as their GPU's did with the HD4000 series and they won't necessarily be going after the performance crown.

Is that truly what they are doing? Because if it is then to those who can't afford a ridiculously expensive i7 system can look at a Phenom II without heartburn. In all seriousness the Phenom II isn't really a bad CPU because at some point you have to ask yourself can you tell the difference between 110FPS and 150FPS if eye candy is maxed out? And even if a person doesn't want the Phenom II it will at least cause a price war between C2Q and Phenom II.

I mean in the end if the consumer makes out better and can save a few bucks does it really matter if Phenom II isn't the C2Q killer or i7 killer some people were hoping it would be if it causes a price war?

 

[FrgMstr]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=9

We did not address Phenom and Phenom II clock for clock and that is what you have linked to. We address Phenom II, C2Q, and Ci7 clock for clock...

 

[panfist]

Read the fucking thread:

You know...I was just reading the fucking thread, and I was just thinking to myself, "why do all of these forumers at [H] complain about the reviews based on a triple SLI platform? We're reviewing the CPU here and trying to as many bottlenecks and variables as possible! And, after all, this is [H], and the readers here mostly care about being [H]ard and Fast. If you want a crappy review of a midrange processor with a midrange video card, go somewhere else!" Except...wait...[H] used midrange RAM! Wuh-oh!

Why so rude? That quote you pointed me to does not mention anything at all about RAM speeds, or power consumption...

And even if you windows task manager reports that RAM usage is fine, I don't trust it, and why not minimize any variables if you can? It's not like it's difficult to swap out a RAM stick or two.

This would be kind of like a scientist saying, "OK the control group and experimental group show this and this differences. Except I was rubbing my balls when we ran the experimental variable." Sure, rubbing your balls may have zero effect in the real world...but WHY would you rub your balls when you could just as easily NOT rub your balls.

Please be less of a fucking asshole.

----------

edit: let me add my own conclusions. I think Intel is really being very nice to AMD. Intel's 45nm chips have been out for some time, they are cheaper to produce than their 65nm line and yet they are priced at a premium. AMD's new 45nm chips are now neck and neck with Intel's old 65nm chips. If seems that if Intel wanted to, they could cut their prices across the board and crush the shit out of AMD.

I also don't see how anyone in their right mind would have bought an original Phenom. I would wager that most of the people who bought Phenom I were either fanboys or didn't know any better.

I agree with Kyle's rancor at AMD. They are the only ones keeping Intel's prices reasonable, and they are really dropped the ball.

 

[jebo_4jc]

good article kyle

 

[crackbone]

I read this review, every word, from start to finish.

I see no bias here @ all. Kyle told it like it is.

AMD is not the same AMD of the Athlon64 days, like it or not. Their R&D has become much more conservative.

For all of the haters, why not just be a fanboy of the best hardware. That's what HardOCP has always been about. AMD is clearly behind Intel, and losing ground. I, for one, are for reviewers that tell the damn truth.

Kyle's right, AMD needs a damn wakeup call. Continually releasing trash and trying to polish turds for sale should lead to customer and reviewer outrage.

AMD will never get any better than this if they aren't called out on it.

 

[FrgMstr]

A lot of people, like me, are here for "best bang for the buck" and thats exactly what the PhII is, a great value.

How exactly is it the best bang for the buck at $275-$299 this morning?

I'm building a close friend a machine with an AM2+ mobo and an older 2.4GHz X2 given to us from a friend. Once we can, we'll be able to drop in a Phenom II in there and have an amazing performance increase, going from his lowly Athlon to matching some of the fastest Core 2 CPUs out. Later down the road, he can get a new mobo and RAM and keep his CPU, extending his upgrade path to an entirely new socket. That makes it not only a great, but an amazing value.

As I said, I don't mean to be rude but this review was so doom-n-gloom it just put me off.

You obviously did not RTFA. The ONE example above that you mention, I did spell out in the article as being a value for the Phenom II. But that is about the only scenario I can justify in my head.

And just to be specific, NO, it will not match the fastes C2 processors out there. The Phenom II is slower clock for clock.

 

[marshmallow]

There is nothing wrong with what you've got. It is just slower than Intel's offerings in the same price range. As we've said time and time again in gaming applications this won't be readily apparent. Your video card is still the most important piece of hardware in determining gaming performance.

If you feel the performance lacking then of course, a Phenom II might be just the thing for you. If you find yourself wanting a new build, don't let anyone stop you. I'd go with a Gigabyte EX58-UD5 and a Core i7 920. Not a budget build by any means but not a super expensive build either. Overclock that sucker and you'll be good to go for quite some time.

Thanks Dan (and Kyle). I'll definitely consider the upgrade in a few months when the price drops.

I've had a list of problems when I first built this system - mb issues (Gigabyte 790fx DS5), ram issues (no real 1066 support), and bios issues (needed bios update to support phenom). It was just an overall frustrating experience, though it's better now with several bios updates and different ram.

 

[SixtyWattMan]

There are way too many people who expected this chip to perform better than it did. I did not expect the processor to come into play as much as it did at high resolutions like it did though. Oh well, at least Far Cry 2 is good for one thing, benchmarking. I would have liked to see some other titles used in the Non-CPU bound gaming section with some AA added in to put more stress on the GPUs. The graph you made was very well done though and the you are right, the Phenom II is a loser.

 

[FrgMstr]

This thread has been quite entertaining.

I do not think the [H] has been biased at all. They're just telling it how it is from the enthusiast perspective. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them wrong.

I do have a question though. I was under the impression that AMD was moving their CPU's towards the same type of price/performance model as their GPU's did with the HD4000 series and they won't necessarily be going after the performance crown.

Is that truly what they are doing? Because if it is then to those who can't afford a ridiculously expensive i7 system can look at a Phenom II without heartburn. In all seriousness the Phenom II isn't really a bad CPU because at some point you have to ask yourself can you tell the difference between 110FPS and 150FPS if eye candy is maxed out? And even if a person doesn't want the Phenom II it will at least cause a price war between C2Q and Phenom II.

I mean in the end if the consumer makes out better and can save a few bucks does it really matter if Phenom II isn't the C2Q killer or i7 killer some people were hoping it would be if it causes a price war?

Thanks for the supporting words and I agree with what you say here. Phenom II for most people that buy from any big system integrator are going to get a good system at a decent price and this is the market AMD is wanting anyway. For the computer hardware enthusiast, and that is who we specifically write for here, Phenom II is not the best choice for a build right now. More of a current build hinges on RAM and Mobo right now and that is what makes Core i7 expensive. I know a LOT of our readers will be investing in Core 2 systems for a good while. With DDR3 getting less expensive it is starting to make sense to go that route and support future upgrades with 1.65v DDR3 parts even if you are building a C2 system today. DDR2 is getting so cheap that it could be seen as disposable though.

For a true budget build, I have a hard time agreeing with some of these guys on a $275 Phenom II processor when I can get Core 2 Quad for less than $200. It just does not shake out for me looking at it from the budget perspective, or the true enthusiast/bang for the buck perspective. Phenom II does not dominate either category. An option? Sure, even a good option, just not the best option as I see it.

 

[sirmonkey1985]

good review kyle.. only question i have is if there is any chance of doing the CPU gaming benchmarks again with a higher resolution? only reason im asking this is just based off a bunch of other reviews that the 940 actually out performed the c2d and i7 once the resolution exceeded 1280x1024.. not sure how accurate those reviews really are.. was just wondering if there was anyway you or some one else could validate that...

only other thing i gotta say is how varied the reviews on the phenom II 920 and 940 really are.. some show the 920 and 940 way better then the c2d and even the qx9770 and some show similar results to here.. just makes me wonder whats really going on and if some review sites are getting cherry picked processors and some arent..

 

[dennisjai]

Kyle, can you do a review on higher resolutions? 16x10 + 19x12?

 

[epicstruggle]

This chip performed exactly what people were thinking a few weeks/months ago. Go look at some of the older threads and you'll see that almost no one thought this was going to be a i7 killer. More a competitor for the C2Q mid range.

That said, I was a bit disappointed in the review method. Would have liked to have seen the same amount of ram across the board. If 2gb was enough for the p2, why not lower the ram on the other 2 systems? Why not include one of the C2Q chips at the same price point and overclock it? Doesnt seem like asking for a lot.

My next system needs to be under $1k. Does it make sense to go with i7 and skimp on the graphics card? Go with a p2 and get a sweet gfx card? .... Unfortunately your review doesnt help me with these questions.

I tend to like your real world benchmarks, but this particular review seems to throw that philosophy out the door. Anyways, just my 2 internet cents.

 

[FrgMstr]

good review kyle.. only question i have is if there is any chance of doing the CPU gaming benchmarks again with a higher resolution? only reason im asking this is just based off a bunch of other reviews that the 940 actually out performed the c2d and i7 once the resolution exceeded 1280x1024.. not sure how accurate those reviews really are.. was just wondering if there was anyway you or some one else could validate that...

only other thing i gotta say is how varied the reviews on the phenom II 920 and 940 really are.. some show the 920 and 940 way better then the c2d and even the qx9770 and some show similar results to here.. just makes me wonder whats really going on and if some review sites are getting cherry picked processors and some arent..

You got links to those sites showing the Phenom II perf getting better as resolution scaled up? I would like to eyeball that for myself. We had some scale up a bit, but only by a frame or two, nothing meaningful and surely without margin of error.

On all the model front, this is exactly why I did clock for clock comparisons across the board at 3.2GHz. If you don't get what you need to know from that, then I don't know what to tell you. We showed Phenom II vs. Core 2 Quad vs. Core i7 at 3.2GHz. The models of the CPUs are irrelevent. You guys are not here to read about stock clock CPU comparisons in today's market. The "OCP" part does not stand for Oversized Clam Punisher.

 

[sirmonkey1985]

yeah i understand the whole overclocked part and think its a good idea none the less.. should be done more often in my opinion when comparing processors to each other.. also shows how well they scale as well..


and ill find the links.. just give me a minute.. its 6:30 in the morning and ive been up for the last 30 hours.. so im a little slow right now..

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=16757&page=8

http://techreport.com/articles.x/16147/4

http://techreport.com/articles.x/16147/5

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/18

http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/19

but then theres results like this.. so in the end i have no clue..

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2009/01/08/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/6

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2009/01/08/amd-phenom-ii-x4-940-and-920-review/7

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/phenom-ii-940,review-31485-19.html


i mean looking at each review its almost to the point taking each one with a grain of sand and hoping you end up getting lucky and get a good 920/940 processor out of the batch.. each one has its own results for each processor and almost none of them are identical.. even looking at all the different overclocks people got in the reviews they show max overclocks ranging from 3.5 to 3.8ghz in the 1.43-1.48v range..

 

[alg7_munif]

You know...I was just reading the fucking thread, and I was just thinking to myself, "why do all of these forumers at [H] complain about the reviews based on a triple SLI platform? We're reviewing the CPU here and trying to as many bottlenecks and variables as possible! And, after all, this is [H], and the readers here mostly care about being [H]ard and Fast. If you want a crappy review of a midrange processor with a midrange video card, go somewhere else!" Except...wait...[H] used midrange RAM! Wuh-oh!

Why so rude? That quote you pointed me to does not mention anything at all about RAM speeds, or power consumption...

And even if you windows task manager reports that RAM usage is fine, I don't trust it, and why not minimize any variables if you can? It's not like it's difficult to swap out a RAM stick or two.

This would be kind of like a scientist saying, "OK the control group and experimental group show this and this differences. Except I was rubbing my balls when we ran the experimental variable." Sure, rubbing your balls may have zero effect in the real world...but WHY would you rub your balls when you could just as easily NOT rub your balls.

Please be less of a fucking asshole.

----------

edit: let me add my own conclusions. I think Intel is really being very nice to AMD. Intel's 45nm chips have been out for some time, they are cheaper to produce than their 65nm line and yet they are priced at a premium. AMD's new 45nm chips are now neck and neck with Intel's old 65nm chips. If seems that if Intel wanted to, they could cut their prices across the board and crush the shit out of AMD.

I also don't see how anyone in their right mind would have bought an original Phenom. I would wager that most of the people who bought Phenom I were either fanboys or didn't know any better.

I agree with Kyle's rancor at AMD. They are the only ones keeping Intel's prices reasonable, and they are really dropped the ball.

Except that [H] only used a single and dual GTX 280 in their previous i7 review.

 

[FrgMstr]

That said, I was a bit disappointed in the review method. Would have liked to have seen the same amount of ram across the board. If 2gb was enough for the p2, why not lower the ram on the other 2 systems? Why not include one of the C2Q chips at the same price point and overclock it? Doesnt seem like asking for a lot.

My next system needs to be under $1k. Does it make sense to go with i7 and skimp on the graphics card? Go with a p2 and get a sweet gfx card? .... Unfortunately your review doesnt help me with these questions.

I tend to like your real world benchmarks, but this particular review seems to throw that philosophy out the door. Anyways, just my 2 internet cents.

What changes do you think we would see with your RAM changes in place? Please explain to me what results are going to change and I will re-run them. I think you guys are throwing up your own red herrings here for some reason. The argument has value on the face of it, but 10 seconds of logic put it into perspective, the volume of RAM makes not difference in our testing. We have set it up that way on purpose. Again, I don't need a 4GB "gas tank" to go around the block one time when 2GB tank has more than enough volume and the same size hose. (dorky analogy on my part but it works)

(We made an attempt to go to 4GB of RAM on all test systems some years ago. Then you start running into all sorts of issues. Timings wont run on this board that they will on the next board. This board does not like 4Up at these timings but will only run 2Up. Vice versa. This one will run 800 buy not 1066. Start putting all those variables together and we moved back from making test that used 4GB of RAM. It is a nightmare when you want to talk about getting consistent comparisons. 2GB we could be consistent with and it made no difference in our testing suite. We simply do not page into over 1.4GB of RAM in our testing. And we do run these tests multiple times. Vista can do some strange things even with a ton of services turned off. If you are not eyeballing for irregularities and discounting them and verifying data, you should not be testing with Vista.)


As for you wanting a specific model CPU, that has already been addressed multiple times in this thread by myself and others. The model number on the CPU makes no difference here.

 

[Stoly]

this pretty much sums it up

Be prepared to replace that feeling of anticipation with one of dissappointment.

I can't say I agree with your conclusion though. Its hard for me to recommend a core-i7 for a new build simply because core2 is such a great value. Sure the i7 is faster but its much more expensive. An i7 setup can cost more than twice as a core2, but you don't get anyway near twice the performance.

BTW I was gonna cry foul when I saw the game benches at 640x480, fortunately I did RTFA.

 

[jonneymendoza]

this pretty much sums it up



I can't say I agree with your conclusion though. Its hard for me to recommend a core-i7 for a new build simply because core2 is such a great value. Sure the i7 is faster but its much more expensive. An i7 setup can cost more than twice as a core2, but you don't get anyway near twice the performance.

BTW I was gonna cry foul when I saw the game benches at 640x480, fortunately I did RTFA.

where have you seen a i7 cost more then double of a core 2. what are you on about? a typical quad core 2 with decent mobo and ram costs around 2/3 of a typical i7 equivalent.

some quad core 2 cpu's are priced more then the i7 920! i wished some people open their eyes a little and realize the ONLY thing that costs alot for a i7 build is the ram and mobo. everything else is just about the same. PSU, cpu coolers, hdd, cases etc! all you need for a i7 rig in comparison to a core 2 rig is mobo, ram and cpu.

spec me a full quad core 2 build with 4gb and then spec me a i7 build with the same amount of memory and same psu, case, hdd etc to show me it costs MORE THEN DOUBLE

 

[w1retap]

Well, this solidifies my i7 choice for a new build. All my main rigs have been AMD based systems ever since after my first Pentium 1. My last AMD X2 gaming system was built *right before* the Core2's came out, so I missed that boat. It looks like I'll finally go back to the dark side. I know the cost is higher, which is why I'm waiting for sales such as Live Cashback and other discounts. I'm ready to bite the bullet.

 

[Dosomo]

The favorable Phenom II reviews that everyone keeps pointing to are flawed in one very important way. They assume that the current pricing of Intel's chips is going to stay the same for some time to come. But there are rumors already floating around that Intel is about to make major price cuts across their whole quad core line up. This would end the whole "for the price, Phenom II is better" argument.

It also proves the flawed logic of aiming your fastest product at the market's mid-range. If your competitor always has the over-all fastest chips regardless of price, then they are always in a position to take the performance-per-dollar crown. AMD has become the company they were before the original Athlon hit the market. The budget CPU maker. They don't even aim for the top end anymore. And if you don't aim to at least compete for the top spot, you are always going to be in second place.

 

[jonneymendoza]

The favorable Phenom II reviews that everyone keeps pointing to are flawed in one very important way. They assume that the current pricing of Intel's chips is going to stay the same for some time to come. But there are rumors already floating around that Intel is about to make major price cuts across their whole quad core line up. This would end the whole "for the price, Phenom II is better" argument.

It also proves the flawed logic of aiming your fastest product at the market's mid-range. If your competitor always has the over-all fastest chips regardless of price, then they are always in a position to take the performance-per-dollar crown. AMD has become the company they were before the original Athlon hit the market. The budget CPU maker. They don't even aim for the top end anymore. And if you don't aim to at least compete for the top spot, you are always going to be in second place.

will the i7 go down in price?

 

[w1retap]

will the i7 go down in price?

No, it's going to stay at it's current prices for all eternity.

 

[jonneymendoza]

No, it's going to stay at it's current prices for all eternity.

and we have AMD to thank for that. nice one AMD and to all these AMD fanboys thinking that us intel users are glad AMD came up with a crap cpu, think again mate, us intel users would love and embrass AMD to come back to compete just so we can buy our parts cheaper and actualy HAVE a choice to choose from.

right now, if you want the best cpu, their is only one company you can chose from

 

[JimmiG]

No, it's going to stay at it's current prices for all eternity.

It will stay at its current price (with no faster models introduced) until AMD can offer some serious competition for it. Imagine if ATI's 4870 just barely beat the 9800GTX and there was no 4870X2. That's what the CPU world looks like right now.

 

[stabilep]

Hmmm I think the review was fine. No one really expected the Phenom II to be an i7 killer. Maybe just MAYBE it may have outpaced the Core 2 Quads is what people possibly expected. However I doubted anyone should be that surprise the original Phenoms were dissappointing. These are equally dissappointing. Ok so lets see The Core 2's are at the end of thier life and they are cheap as dirt cheaper then the i7's or the Phenom II. So right there they are already losing out. You can get a Phenom II for the AM2 platform and get to buy yet another new motherboard and ram when AMD jumps ship to the AM3 platform though at least these will be compatiable supposedly. But then you have the i7 and i5 series from intel that Amd will be competing with which unfortuantly for AMD doesn't seem like the Phenom II is going to be enough. i7 platforms are not the expensive. $280 for the processor, $210 for the motherboard and $80 for triple channel memory. Thats not bad at all.

The only advantage I see with going with AMD at this point is that you already have a motherboard compatiable with the Phenom II and don't want to replace your mainboard and ram yet. Thats the only time I think it would be worth it.

If you are building a new system then if you can get an i7 system you should get that it will last longer and be an overall better platform. It supports SLi and Crossfire on the X58 chips and it uses newer DDR3 in triple channel RAM whcih should be in use for a bit.

If you cannot afford an i7 then go with the Core 2 builds. The parts are cheaper, more supported and are just as overclockable and perform just as well if not better then the Phenom II (Depending whose review you follow) Sure you don't get the upgrade path you could from a Phenom II system but for that price you might as well get an i7 system.

But Kyle is right there is no point going with technology meant to go up against last years phased out tech its dumb and deserve neither praise or respect.

 

[FrgMstr]

Yes, that page compares the performance gains over the original Phenom by this new architecture, but isn't that the whole point? Looking primarily at FC2 in the gaming tests essentially treats the Phenom-II as a speed bump and nothing more, to me.

I thing the big sticking point here is why, even if it makes no difference in the scores, did you use 4GB of RAM in the QX9770 system when you could just as easily have used 2GB. You mention potential problems with timings, but surely you've got at least one pair of sticks of RAM that will run at their rated timings and speeds in both platforms.

First off, I addressed this in the article directly. Please RTFA. To directly address your point, NO, performance gains of PII over P1 were not the focus of the article. We made sure to communicate that right out of the gate. Given that you don't agree with our focus, and you don't agree with our testing hardware, I am not sure what you are still arguing about. You wanted it done differently. I get that. Your thoughts are noted.

Second, I did not want to use 4GB in a 4Up configuration. It will usually retard the benchmarks to a small degree compared to 4Gb in a 2Up configuration. In my mind I felt as though I was giving the PII an advantage doing this, obviosly you see it differently although you still have not supplie ANY specific situation where it would have. I was disappointed I could not get any of our PIIs to run 1066 memory though. And I did spend a lot of time trying. We have focused on 1GB sticks of DDR2 for a long time now and that is all I had at hand speced for 800MHz. Trust me, we have a lot of 1GB sticks, just not 2GB DDR2 as we have never used it in testing.

 

[Dan_D]

Yes, that page compares the performance gains over the original Phenom by this new architecture, but isn't that the whole point? Looking primarily at FC2 in the gaming tests essentially treats the Phenom-II as a speed bump and nothing more, to me.

That is all Phenom II really is when you get down to it. Sure AMD did more than that on a technical level but what are the end results? A speed bump vs. the original Phenom, nothing more.

I thing the big sticking point here is why, even if it makes no difference in the scores, did you use 4GB of RAM in the QX9770 system when you could just as easily have used 2GB. You mention potential problems with timings, but surely you've got at least one pair of sticks of RAM that will run at their rated timings and speeds in both platforms.

It really wouldn't make much of a difference. If the tests don't use more than 2GB of RAM how would more RAM change the results?

will the i7 go down in price?

The Core i7 is already going down in price. As I've said, at Microcenter I've seen Core i7 920's going for $269.99 in the store. But in response to Phenom II I think Intel will probably adjust the pricing of their 45nm quad cores to match or even undercut Phenom II.

 

[Michaelius]

Is there any resonable explanation for running triple sli system and testing Far Cry 2 without AA enabled ?

 

[FrgMstr]

Is there any resonable explanation for running triple sli system and testing Far Cry 2 without AA enabled ?

RTFA man....I have already typed it all up once.

 

[FrgMstr]

The favorable Phenom II reviews that everyone keeps pointing to are flawed in one very important way. They assume that the current pricing of Intel's chips is going to stay the same for some time to come. But there are rumors already floating around that Intel is about to make major price cuts across their whole quad core line up. This would end the whole "for the price, Phenom II is better" argument.

It also proves the flawed logic of aiming your fastest product at the market's mid-range. If your competitor always has the over-all fastest chips regardless of price, then they are always in a position to take the performance-per-dollar crown. AMD has become the company they were before the original Athlon hit the market. The budget CPU maker. They don't even aim for the top end anymore. And if you don't aim to at least compete for the top spot, you are always going to be in second place.

We bought our i7 920 retail CPUs over a month ago and paid less than Phenom II. Gotta watch for those cashback deals! http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1365577

Intel i7 920 - $228 after Cashback!

My personal final cost, $227 each for ci7-920s.