AMD Phenom II X4 Model 940 @ [H]

[Mackintire]

Kyle or Dan,

Considering all the benchmarks I have seen. I am wondering if the scaling issues are tied to both the hypertransport bus speed and the memory interface speed.

The rumor is that the AM3 version is going to be 4-8% faster at default speeds in memory bandwidth constrained applications. Also that the AM3 version is a slightly newer spin so there are other small improvement made to the chip.

IF, this this is true and it is corrected in the next version, do you think that the outcome will this modify your current opinion?

 

[Zero82z]

very true but in this economic climate if you have an am2 based system and you want more performance with out replacing everything this is the option amd has given you for a simple upgrade path. to hold you over till the next generation comes

And that is the only thing Phenom II is good for. Upgrades. When it comes to new systems, there is no reason to go with it over a Core 2 Quad setup.

is amd in a performance hole yes can they get out of it yes amd has a lot of talented engineers that have accomplished a lot though will they anytime this year probably not.

If AMD could have gotten out of their performance hole, then they would have done it with this chip. Clearly, they have not done so, and I fail to see where you get the idea that your statement is in any way accurate.

How many sockets has intel had in the past 5 years prob the same amount...

Two. LGA775, and now LGA1366.

amd will always be in a clock for clock decificit with intel

Yeah, just like they were in the A64 versus P4 days .

 

[schizo]

Earlier in the thread someone linked to this review at "pcgameshardware.com" to prove that the P2 can beat the C2Q.. This is an example of why other sites suck and hardocp rocks. That review says

The Phenom II X4 940 BE doesn't just beat its predecessor, but in 1,680 x 1,050 it is even faster than the similarly priced Intel Q9950.

But when you read the chart carefully, you'll see they're comparing the P2 overclocked up to 3.6Ghz versus the Q9550 at 2.83Ghz. At the noted lower resolution and stock clocks all the way down the page, the P2 won by 1FPS over the Q9550 in their tests, likely within the margin of error. That's just misleading.

And of course then they're comparing stock speeds, which does have some validity for the massive number of people that don't overclock-- but do we really care?

HardOCP's review had some issues. The various configurations used different amounts of RAM, the P2's RAM was underclocked, they mostly used canned benchmarks, and they didn't cover as many gaming engines as I'd like. But it seems to me there's one very simple explanation for that-- it was incredibly obvious that the Phenom2 was a loser from the start and Kyle just didn't want to waste more time than necessary in his evaluation.

 

[Zero82z]

the tlb bug from the 1st batch of phenoms pushed everything back by 6 months to a year

No it didn't.

 

[Table21]

Not a bad review. Kyle's opinion is fairly similar to my own.

However I have to say that I don't really care for clock for clock tests, to me they mean nothing. For the 90% of people who buy these they will be run at stock, and for the 10% they will be overclocked to either a stable day to day running or max O/C for benching.

In that regards I found that I was able to make just shy 4GHz on the Phenom II that I had while keeping the Vcore under 1.5. What these means on the grand scale of things is that the PII beat my q6600, and gave my q9550 C0 a run for its money (mine only goes 3.8 on a p5q-dlx). It lost by a good amount though to my q9550 E0 which does 4.2GHz.

I have not finished building my I7 setup yet but I know that it wont hold a candle to it.

In terms of performance for the dollar the PII 940 would have to be worth about $175 to take that title.

Finally as a reasonable upgrade path for am2+ users, I guess it might be cheaper. But as I stated in my PII thread, of all the computer enthusiast I know almost no one had a AM2+ board. Over the last 2 years everyone went s775.

 

[FrgMstr]

Kyle or Dan,

Considering all the benchmarks I have seen. I am wondering if the scaling issues are tied to both the hypertransport bus speed and the memory interface speed.

The rumor is that the AM3 version is going to be 4-8% faster at default speeds in memory bandwidth constrained applications. Also that the AM3 version is a slightly newer spin so there are other small improvement made to the chip.

IF, this this is true and it is corrected in the next version, do you think that the outcome will this modify your current opinion?

What memory constrained bandwidth applications are you talking about exactly?

I would think yes, the AM3 would have to get some sort of boost from somewhere. Otherwise there is no reason to transition, but I don't think we are going to see any of this manifest itself on the desktop. Phenom never has been a desktop processor. It is a server processor in a different package. Go read some of Anand's server coverage. Great stuff there that really shows some of Phenom shining.

 

[alg7_munif]

Except a Core 2 platform is cheaper not the same price. And as for your selling memory arguement I got 8 sticks of DDR400 ram that disagree with you. I can't give those suckers away if I tried let alone sell them. New ones sell for like $10 on the egg I am sure used is a fraction of that. Unless I wait until its so old Nasa will by them from me to use on the next shuttle which by that time I will be on 4 computers later.

And I am confused I thought this would work on an AM3 board? So if it doesn't work then what the heck is the point of this release?

That's why you should buy the biggest RAM per stick for your system. Nobody would want a 512MB DDR 400 stick but if you look at the price for the 1GB DDR 400 stick and compare that to the 1GB DDR2 stick. Which has the higher price?

Edit: Let me just do that for you
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...147 1052107965 1052308477&bop=And&Order=PRICE

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...147 1052308477 1052416064&bop=And&Order=PRICE

 

[mjz_5]

the article should have been comparing CPUs at the same price point...

i thought MHZ wasn't important.. why not put in a dual core p4 3.8 in there than... lol

 

[FrgMstr]

However I have to say that I don't really care for clock for clock tests, to me they mean nothing.

Why is that our benchmarks mean nothing to you? Being an overclocker yourself, I would have guessed the opposite. It is exactly what I wanted to know.

 

[Mackintire]

I was refering to applications like WINRAR, and to some smaller degree some game engines.

But since this is all hear-say I digress. I was trying to prove so the newer members that your are in fact being objective.

 

[FrgMstr]

the article should have been comparing CPUs at the same price point...

i thought MHZ wasn't important.. why not put in a dual core p4 3.8 in there than... lol

I am sure there are plenty of other sites that will fit your needs, sorry for not giving you the cookie cutter mass fed to you by most others.

 

[maxius]

Two. LGA775, and now LGA1366.

Yeah, just like they were in the A64 versus P4 days .

hmm your numbers are off lets run threw them

intel 478, 604, 771, 775, 1366

amd 754, 940, 939, am2/+, socket F

 

[Volcanon]

the article should have been comparing CPUs at the same price point...

i thought MHZ wasn't important.. why not put in a dual core p4 3.8 in there than... lol

RTFA?

Enthusiasts, which this site is aimed at, will most certainly be fiddling with their processor and OCing it. While the new P2 OCs much better than the original Phenoms, Core2's still OC just as well if not better than P2's.

And you'd think that AMD's brand new part would at least compete with the dusty old Core2's clock for clock? It just isn't so and that's a damn shame.

 

[FrgMstr]

I was refering to applications like WINRAR, and to some smaller degree some game engines.

But since this is all hear-say I digress. I was trying to prove so the newer members that your are in fact being objective.

I really wanted to know what apps you were talking about. I was hoping to hear of something from you that I was not aware of.

 

[stabilep]

That's why you should buy the biggest RAM per stick for your system. Nobody would want a 512MB DDR 400 stick but if you look at the price for the 1GB DDR 400 stick and compare that to the 1GB DDR2 stick. Which has the higher price?

When people were buying DDR ram most people were using 1gb set ups. And by the time you needed 2gb you either bought two more sticks of 512mb or you were moving onto DDR2 which the 1gb sticks were cheap. 1gb DDR 400 ram was prohibitively expensive at the time and you wanted dual channel anyways because it was better performance. 2gb of ram is just recently became mainstream even for gamers.

 

[Zero82z]

hmm your numbers are off lets run threw them

intel 478, 604, 771, 775, 1366

amd 754, 940, 939, am2/+, socket F

Intel has introduced only two desktop sockets in the last five years. LGA775 was released in 2004, and LGA1366 was released in 2008. My numbers are not off.

And please learn to spell. It is difficult to read your posts when you insist on writing them like someone who is in elementary school. The correct word is "through", not threw.

 

[maxius]

Intel has introduced only two desktop sockets in the last five years. LGA775 was released in 2004, and LGA1366 was released in 2008. My numbers are not off.

And please learn to spell. It is difficult to read your posts when you insist on writing them like someone who is in elementary school. The correct word is "through", not threw.

i stand corrected you win

 

[stabilep]

hmm your numbers are off lets run threw them

intel 478, 604, 771, 775, 1366

amd 754, 940, 939, am2/+, socket F

uhhhh
Lets fix that shall we
Intel: 478, 775, 1366 (And 478 was already out by that time but I am throwig a bone here)
AMD: 754, 940, 939, AM2, AM2+ (And soon socket AM3)

if you want to compare servers then:
Intel 604, 771
AMD 940, F

But since we are discussing desktop processors and not servers thats not really needed.

 

[zaxour]

Well, I have read every review-- good, bad, and in-between-- regarding the Phenom II X4. Instead of all the backlashing and biases I've read in everyone's replies, how about a realistic question?

Has any review ever considered the fact that the reason the Core i7 outperforms a Phenom II is because it has vastly different architecture and technology? Example: The Core i7 re-implements HyperThreading so it can process up to 8 threads simultaneously. I would consider all the testing a bit lopsided if one doesn't consider the fact that these are two entirely different processors. The Core i7 acts as if it were 8 CPUs in one compared to the Phenom II with 4 cores. Even if with 1 core on each CPU, the Core i7 is still performing two threads at one time compared to a single thread on a Phenom II.

I'm going to ask the same question I asked back in the AMD forum here:

What does AMD need to do DIFFERENTLY to be able to compete at the SAME LEVEL as Intel on their Core i7 processors?

How is it possible that two CPUs with almost the same transistor count and die size perform so differently that one CPU outperforms the other by approximately 50%, 75%, 100% or even 200% in a lot of areas?
​

Does AMD have to implement a version of HyperThreading to be at the same speed and performance as an i7?

Does AMD have to reorganize and reconstruct the layout of various components on the CPU die (or core) to be at the same performance as an i7?

What is AMD doing wrong that makes the Phenom II perform worst than an i7 clock-for-clock at almost the same transistor count and die size? And, what do they have to do to be at an equivalent and competitive performance to the i7?

It's the one question that hasn't been given a straight answer back in that thread. I'd like something that is a more plausible and concrete explanation, even if technical. I can understand technical.

Honestly, there's no simple answer to your question, and most people here aren't electrical engineers.

Some of it probably has to do with their implementation of 45nm technology. Intel uses a hafnium oxide gate for its 45nm process. I checked AMD's fact sheet and all they say is high-k dielectric which doesn't tell you much. They also say they are working on it with IBM.

Some of it has to do with reducing path lengths between the logic gates and reducing transistor count for certain components (i.e. using nand implementation instead of nor).

There's no simple answer and Intel's design team is simply unmatched right now.

 

[alg7_munif]

When people were buying DDR ram most people were using 1gb set ups. And by the time you needed 2gb you either bought two more sticks of 512mb or you were moving onto DDR2 which the 1gb sticks were cheap. 1gb DDR 400 ram was prohibitively expensive at the time and you wanted dual channel anyways because it was better performance. 2gb of ram is just recently became mainstream even for gamers.

When I bought my 2x1GB DDR 400, it was still cheaper than 2x1GB DDR2. For now, the best bet would be DDR2 1066 2GB stick.

Btw I edited my last post to add these links:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...147 1052308477 1052416064&bop=And&Order=PRICE
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...147 1052107965 1052308477&bop=And&Order=PRICE

 

[stabilep]

Must have been at the end of its lifeline it was a fortune when i was buying sticks fo 512mb I was paying like $150 for a 1gb 2x512mb. Thats was when I built my Athlon 64 3500+. But that was like 3 years ago I don't think prices will change quite that much in a year. Regardless the cost of memory or resell value is irrelvant. A Core 2 Quad system is cheaper and performs just as well or an i7 system now paying more performs better and you get to keep the mainboard and ram for a minute.

There is little value in build a brand new Phenom II system from scratch. if you have a compatiable AM2+ motherboard and all the ram you could want right now and the AM3 PII come out at the same price then I see some value but building a new one? Its pointless and a waste of money.

 

[Mackintire]

Honestly, there's no simple answer to your question, and most people here aren't electrical engineers.

Some of it probably has to do with their implementation of 45nm technology. Intel uses a hafnium oxide gate for its 45nm process. I checked AMD's fact sheet and all they say is high-k dielectric which doesn't tell you much. They also say they are working on it with IBM.

Some of it has to do with reducing path lengths between the logic gates and reducing transistor count for certain components (i.e. using nand implementation instead of nor).

There's no simple answer and Intel's design team is simply unmatched right now.

Um... yes no and maybe.


No EE degree here, but I do have 70+ credits of EE and 5 years of electrical design experiance.

Yes there is a huge difference in the processes that Intel and AMD use. Supposedly in by the 3rd quarter of this year AMD should start producing 45nm bulk which is very similar to what Intel is using.

AMD and Intel have very different designs. Intels L2 Cache is highly associative, and very fast. Intel is almost one generation ahead of AMD on their branch prediction engine. So yes they are very different.


What can AMD fix?

The primary execution engine needs redone. The design is not capable of scaling the way the I7 is. Huge changes are not really needed on that end, but the design goals have to be reestabished and re-evaluated. An example of this would be if AMD redesigned the core to execute 33% more micro-ops per clock. That said, AMD needs to make sure that they can feed that new pipeline. A hyper transport bus with 33% more bandwidth would have to be implemented and the branch prediction unit redesigned to match. These oversimplified changes would give AMD's processors parity with Intel I7 at 2Ghz but there are many other modifications and process requirements that still need to be met in order to build a working processor that could be considered [H]ard certified.

That's a deep rabbit hole for anyone to speculate on. I used to love reading this stuff on Aces hardware. Anandtech gets into the design theory once in a while, but again I am going off topic.

I hope this anwsered some of your questions.

 

[Tom128]

Fun facts:
QX9770 has 12MB L2 cache (phenom 2 not competing with this)
Q9400 has 6MB L2 cache (phenom 2 is competing with this)
Core2 Quads don't have onboard MC, L2 cache is a big deal. Very big...huge.
You don't have to be at 100% ram usage before the page file gets hit. You just have to start getting close.

 

[fuelvolts]

Well, like Kyle said in the review, this is really aimed at people who just HAVE to have AMD. I have a decent amount of money invested in AMD, so I'm not ready to jump ship yet. I have an X2 4800+ that I've had for about 18 months. I've been itching to upgrade to quad core, but trying to hold out since funds aren't infinite. The Phenom II sounds like a winner to me, but only until they get a 95w or less version (one b/c I have a 780g chipset and two I don't want to spend $50 a month powering the thing).

Good review, I thought it was a little harsh, but AMD has got to do something more, so it's fair.

 

[Zero82z]

Fun facts:
QX9770 has 12MB L2 cache (phenom 2 not competing with this)
Q9400 has 6MB L2 cache (phenom 2 is competing with this)
Core2 Quads don't have onboard MC, L2 cache is a big deal. Very big...huge.
You don't have to be at 100% ram usage before the page file gets hit. You just have to start getting close.

Fun fact: Cache doesn't make quite as much difference as you think with Intel chips. Even with less cache, the Q9400 would most likely still do better than a Phenom II clock for clock.

 

[FrgMstr]

Man, you must have been up all night posting on here. No wonder you are so edgy. LOL.

Na, that is just how I am after posting here about 19,000 times. Rest has little to do with it. I learned a long time ago that being delicate gets you nowhere on the intarweb. Gotta pound those keys with iron fingertips.

 

[FrgMstr]

Fun Fact: I sent the guys at AMD our benchmarks weeks ago and none of them complained.

 

[tungt88]

Well, like Kyle said in the review, this is really aimed at people who just HAVE to have AMD. I have a decent amount of money invested in AMD, so I'm not ready to jump ship yet. I have an X2 4800+ that I've had for about 18 months. I've been itching to upgrade to quad core, but trying to hold out since funds aren't infinite. The Phenom II sounds like a winner to me, but only until they get a 95w or less version (one b/c I have a 780g chipset and two I don't want to spend $50 a month powering the thing).

Good review, I thought it was a little harsh, but AMD has got to do something more, so it's fair.

Much more. Tunnel Snakes rule!

 

[hasoos]

Yes Intel chips are better. But I think a point missed by a lot of folks here, is the fact that the performance differences in many of these games, will never be noticed. They are all running over 60 fps. There are a few strat games where they drop below, or super high resolutions. Most folks aren't running 24"+ Monitors though. For many folks it comes down to performance per dollar. Can you spend the same amount of money and get better performance? The answer is yes, if you overclock the chips. If you leave them the stock speed, they are fairly equal though, so pick your poison.

At the same time depending on upgrade paths, if you have to buy a motherboard to use that new Intel processor, it might not necessarily be a better path anymore. You have to buy a chip and now a 100+ dollar motherboard to get your system up. Now it starts to make more sense to upgrade your AMD.

Buying a whole new system though? Well then go Intel.

I do think this chip is a step forward. So it's still behind Intel? So what. It will sure beat the hell out of my 5000 black edition overclocked to 3.0, without buying a new motherboard. I play everything now with that chip, and this one is better.

 

[zaxour]

Um... yes no and maybe.
No EE degree here, but I do have 70+ credits of EE and 5 years of electrical design experiance.

Well, I'm almost finished with my BSEE, but I think you've got me beat on the design experience :X

I am totally not understanding your logic bro. I read the ENTIRE article, and Im sure your reply will just be a rehash of "RTFA" so whatever man. But seriously...what the hell dude. You are telling me you would not recommend this platform to a guy that wants to build a brand new comp from scratch, and only has about $700? You would rather suggest super expensive Intel chipsets and procs, than a nice budget minded AMD build, that will inevitably come within a few percent of the intel benchmarks? For a fraction of the money?

Unless the person has an AM2+ board that can handle the power output necessary for the phenom 2, they will have to buy a new motherboard anyway, invalidating this approach. Anyone who bought a phenom or x2 the past year or so, yeah this is a no brainer. Anyone who is building from scratch, for $700, has better options. This is one of the many reasons why Kyle is hitting on AMD so hard, their platform does not have the performance/value ratio that Intel does right now.

 

[trick_m0nkey]

This post right here, is the reason I only skim Hardforums and read the front page news and give only a grain of salt to the so called "[H]ard" reviews nowadays.

I don't see where you are getting all this hate man.

Does anyone remember the Slot 1/Slot A days of the Thunderbird vs PIII? The Athlon was slower, but could overclock like a demon because the L2 cache ran at half the speed of the core clock, I dont remember Kyle stating "IM NOT RECOMMENDING THIS SHITTY LOSER OF A PART CALLED THUNDERBIRD!!"

I am totally not understanding your logic bro. I read the ENTIRE article, and Im sure your reply will just be a rehash of "RTFA" so whatever man. But seriously...what the hell dude. You are telling me you would not recommend this platform to a guy that wants to build a brand new comp from scratch, and only has about $700? You would rather suggest super expensive Intel chipsets and procs, than a nice budget minded AMD build, that will inevitably come within a few percent of the intel benchmarks? For a fraction of the money?

I dont know what to say man. Im disappointed in your review and you as a smart person to determine what a product is really worth. Maybe you are that rich now, you finally made it dude. You are one of those people that never has to worry about money anymore. Congrats, we'll all get there one day with the amount of work you've done. But I would have thought the end result would have made a better reviewer/person out of you. Money really doesnt make good people I suppose.

The problem is that even if you overclock the PII like crazy, you still wont get the same performance as anything from Intel's offerings. And on top of that, Intel's processor overclock extremely well themselves. 700 bucks can get you a i7 920, a i7 mobo, and some ram. That's a whole new platform, and the cost is only going to go down, it's very future resistant, and its performance blows away everything. For 700 bucks you could easily afford a pretty high end core 2 quad platform that would blow away your current rig, and mine.
Your talking about price to performance? You honestly think that a $275 processor from AMD is a budget part? For another 25 bucks you will get a processor that will damn near double the performance in a lot of areas in the i7. Yeah you wont have to buy a new mobo, but face it...our AM2 slots are obsolete and they are a dead end now for everything but budget computers. Intel has cheaper offerings that have similar if not superior performance as pointed out by these benchmarks. Kyle is in all honesty trying to SAVE you money in the long run by making sure you dont buy a lemon.
Yeah I'm dissapointed as well. I am an AMD fan and I've had AMD in all my rigs, starting with Socket A. I was really hoping to buy a PII to replace my 5000+ BE, but, after reading this I just think it's a lot more worth it to simply save up my money and buy a new platform. My 5000+ plays just fine and I dont have to be cutting edge right away. AMD simply failed us again and I hope they dont take down ATI with them if they go under.

 

[Matt126]

Anyone who thinks this review is biased obviously has not been reading [H] very long. Either that or they don't read it carefully enough. The latter is perfectly obvious when reading through this thread. People look at the pictures and draw their own conclusions. It's quite silly really.

Whoever is doing poorly in the market at the time can be sure that Kyle will call them out. He's rightfully annoyed, and we should be too. You saw what happened when ATI recently came out with some cards that could actually compete. Prices went down, down, down. We should expect the same from AMD.

Kyle is never afraid to call it like it is, and I respect that. He does not always do it tactfully, but that's just his style. You either love it or hate it. After the whole Phantom fiasco a few years back Kyle gained my respect for his impartial judgment and unwavering integrity. In a world where you are force-fed BS on a daily basis, I find it Kyle's approach to be refreshing and informative.

Kyle, don't change a thing. I will have no problem calling you out when you do.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

it's an informative review for those who are a bit more savvy and enthusiasts for sure.

That said if money was not an issue, obviously someone would go i7.
Platform vs Platform in terms of performance-per-dollar doesn't make much sense in comparing the PhII vs i7, they are in a different category, someone who is considering an i7 shouldn't even consider a PhII.

At first I was a bit confused as to why Q6600, Q9400 etc were not compared at stock speeds as they can compete directly in price for the platform and cpu.
I don't think this review is tailored to the masses like some of the other ones, it doesn't take into account price and platform, it is probably aimed more at enthusiasts who want to know the big question, can Phenom II compete with i7 or C2Q, which is what is at the heart of HardOCP, =)

 

[trooper11]

I wasnt aware that there was alot of hype around this release. In fact, it seems like AMD has downplayed the whole release, knowing that these chips arent high end material. I can understand that for those that want AMD to succeed, it would be very frustrating to see that they couldnt make up enough ground here, but the P2 is only a process change, not an architecture change. I had gotten to the point of accepting that it wouldnt catch i7 well before it was released becuase of the lackluster hype from AMD.

I think AMDs biggest hurddle is that there is no time. With Intel's Tick/Tock strategy, AMD could at best match thier pace, but that wouldnt be enough to compete at the high end since they are behind now. It just seems like we are going to see this same patter play out unless something drastic happens (either Intel has to slow down or AMD somehow leep frogs them with an advancement that brings them back in parity). I just dont think the money or the time is there for AMD to jump ahead of Intel anytime soon.

AMD is really just trying to survive in the hopes of making that great leap in the future. Like they have done in the past when they are down, they focus on the entry to mid range for profit. Now if they cant even do that, then I dont see how they catch Intel. I think P2 can keep them aflaot, but agressive pricing will be part of that. They dont have anything else for a year or two, so P2 has to work, if that means they win on price, then thats what they have to do. P2 is good enough to excel if the pricing is there.

 

[evolucion8]

I didn't like the review, the AMD setup had only 2GB (I used to have slowdowns in Vista in many games like F.E.A.R., Lost Planet and Crysis when I had 2GB with my old setup), also I compared it with many other reviews around the web and it's very unprofessional, I know that this is for free, people will like it and other won't, and blah blah blah, but that doesn't take the fact that you'll loose some respect in the Enthusiast World because of the many biased reviews that have been running around lately, acussing and using juvenile worlds like "PHENOM X2 IS A LOSER" when it's a cheap CPU which is quite competitive to a good CPU like the Q9400, depending of the scenario, can be as fast, slighly slower, slighly faster or sometimes can be even faster than the Q9770 in weird scenarios.

Pretty much like the HD 4870 videocard against the overall faster GTX 280 (Or the HD 3870/HD 2900XT against the overall faster 8800GTX) Oh my God, and for the worse, telling people to get lost, hiding the fact that this place is nVidia and Intel biased, cussing around and insulting people, we're losing him. No matter what AMD does, it will always suck compared to nVidia and Intel, that's the main plot in this place overall. Competition is always good folks, keep that in mind.

 

[vile1SoC]

The problem is that even if you overclock the PII like crazy, you still wont get the same performance as anything from Intel's offerings. And on top of that, Intel's processor overclock extremely well themselves. 700 bucks can get you a i7 920, a i7 mobo, and some ram. That's a whole new platform, and the cost is only going to go down, it's very future resistant, and its performance blows away everything. For 700 bucks you could easily afford a pretty high end core 2 quad platform that would blow away your current rig, and mine.
Your talking about price to performance? You honestly think that a $275 processor from AMD is a budget part? For another 25 bucks you will get a processor that will damn near double the performance in a lot of areas in the i7. Yeah you wont have to buy a new mobo, but face it...our AM2 slots are obsolete and they are a dead end now for everything but budget computers. Intel has cheaper offerings that have similar if not superior performance as pointed out by these benchmarks. Kyle is in all honesty trying to SAVE you money in the long run by making sure you dont buy a lemon.
Yeah I'm dissapointed as well. I am an AMD fan and I've had AMD in all my rigs, starting with Socket A. I was really hoping to buy a PII to replace my 5000+ BE, but, after reading this I just think it's a lot more worth it to simply save up my money and buy a new platform. My 5000+ plays just fine and I dont have to be cutting edge right away. AMD simply failed us again and I hope they dont take down ATI with them if they go under.

Soooo... ok

AMD $659
Sapphire 4870
DFI M2RSH
g.Skill 4GB
Phenom II 920

Intel $789
Sapphire 4870
g.Skill 4GB DDR3
MSI X58 mobo
Core i7 920


Big difference there broski.
And in the meantime, I would like to point everyone to a REAL review of the Phenom II over at XtremeSystems: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=213690
It must be a miracle cuz they actually got the RAM to run at 1066 as well, INCREDIBLE!

 

[XamediX]

I wasn't aware of the all this hype people are talking about also. Maybe I was under a rock, but even still... Also, is anyone else confused just a tad when everyone keeps referring to the PhenomII as a PII? Maybe it's because I'm one of the older members that was actually around when the Pentium II was mainstream? But I keep having to remind myself, PII is Phenom II!

I also hope people are understanding that H did a core for core test so YES IT SHOULD BE a bit different if the rest of the websites test stock speeds. That, IMHO is a lie that the CPU companies are pushing with their naming schemes so people can start comparing differently clocked processors and think that's equal.

I am totally not understanding your logic bro. I read the ENTIRE article, and Im sure your reply will just be a rehash of "RTFA" so whatever man. But seriously...what the hell dude. You are telling me you would not recommend this platform to a guy that wants to build a brand new comp from scratch, and only has about $700? You would rather suggest super expensive Intel chipsets and procs, than a nice budget minded AMD build, that will inevitably come within a few percent of the intel benchmarks? For a fraction of the money?

I hope you aren't basing this conclusion off the fact that due to Phenom's sucking (in [H]'s eyes) Kyle wants people to buy an i7. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought he was saying that a Core2Quad is a better cost effective decision than a PII at this stage in the game. I don't think he is pushing the i7 over the PII as best bang for the buck. If I'm right, your argument disappears and you need not be confused anymore. Win win...

 

[FrgMstr]

I didn't like the review, the AMD setup had only 2GB (I used to have slowdowns in Vista in many games like F.E.A.R., Lost Planet and Crysis when I had 2GB with my old setup), also I compared it with many other reviews around the web and it's very unprofessional, I know that this is for free, people will like it and other won't, and blah blah blah, but that doesn't take the fact that you'll loose some respect in the Enthusiast World because of the many biased reviews that have been running around lately, acussing and using juvenile worlds like "PHENOM X2 IS A LOSER" when it's a cheap CPU which is quite competitive to a good CPU like the Q9400, depending of the scenario, can be as fast, slighly slower, slighly faster or sometimes can be even faster than the Q9770 in weird scenarios.

Pretty much like the HD 4870 videocard against the overall faster GTX 280 (Or the HD 3870/HD 2900XT against the overall faster 8800GTX) Oh my God, and for the worse, telling people to get lost, hiding the fact that this place is nVidia and Intel biased, cussing around and insulting people, we're losing him. No matter what AMD does, it will always suck compared to nVidia and Intel, that's the main plot in this place overall. Competition is always good folks, keep that in mind.

You guys are funny. Quote from TODAY:

NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 295 simply costs too much in it performance segment. The current price drops on Radeon HD 4870 X2’s make it the best bang for the buck currently. The performance gain just isn’t enough right now to warrant a price that is $100 more than the competition. Even if you scoff at the MIR, we are still talking about a $50 price difference. That is a lot of money to many of us.

We don't really care much about the branding on the package, some of you get it, others don't.

And yes, competition is always good. Too bad AMD's CPU side did not show up for the game in a couple of years.

 

[Dosomo]

This post right here, is the reason I only skim Hardforums and read the front page news and give only a grain of salt to the so called "[H]ard" reviews nowadays.

I don't see where you are getting all this hate man.

Does anyone remember the Slot 1/Slot A days of the Thunderbird vs PIII? The Athlon was slower, but could overclock like a demon because the L2 cache ran at half the speed of the core clock, I dont remember Kyle stating "IM NOT RECOMMENDING THIS SHITTY LOSER OF A PART CALLED THUNDERBIRD!!"

I am totally not understanding your logic bro. I read the ENTIRE article, and Im sure your reply will just be a rehash of "RTFA" so whatever man. But seriously...what the hell dude. You are telling me you would not recommend this platform to a guy that wants to build a brand new comp from scratch, and only has about $700? You would rather suggest super expensive Intel chipsets and procs, than a nice budget minded AMD build, that will inevitably come within a few percent of the intel benchmarks? For a fraction of the money?

I dont know what to say man. Im disappointed in your review and you as a smart person to determine what a product is really worth. Maybe you are that rich now, you finally made it dude. You are one of those people that never has to worry about money anymore. Congrats, we'll all get there one day with the amount of work you've done. But I would have thought the end result would have made a better reviewer/person out of you. Money really doesnt make good people I suppose.

This entire rant was pure BS. What "super expensive" Intel chipsets and processors are you talking about? My guess is that you would say X58 and I7. The truth is this: Intel's last-gen CPU and chipshet, Core 2 Quad and P45, are faster than the Phenom II. And they are cheaper too. Hell, the "low-end" Core I7 cost the same as the lowest Phenom II. It is the motherboard and ram that make the Core I7 platform cost more. And not some crazy amount more either. A couple hundred dollars more over-all.

So, yeah...anyone with an ounce of objectivity would not recommend spending your money on a ground-up system built around a Phenom II. There are better options for the same or less money. And while I would like to see AMD do well as a company, I absolutely will not give my hard earned money to a company for an inferior product just because I like 'em a whole bunch. It is their job to earn my money.

 

[FrgMstr]

Do they normally response to reviews? Lost cause maybe? I generally put [H]'s reviews as my main input for hardware but I have not see any other reviews with the same conclusions (and tone) you drew. I can dismiss a few but its fairly universal. You made it clear ahead of time weeks ago that you though PII's were worthless on the front page as well.

Yes.

I assume if we were a lost cause they would not send us hardware?

Yes, I made that aware because it was weeks ago that I started using them and PII information was leaking all over the web. I had little reason to be light lipped about it. Hopefully saving our readers some heartache.