# Phenom II X4 940 Tested at Stock Speeds



## btarunr (Dec 23, 2008)

BreakTheLimt.net, a Malaysian hardware portal tested the Phenom II X4 940 at its stock speed of 3.00 GHz, and posted a sting of benchmark results of the said chip. It was tested on a platform consisting of a MSI DKA790GX Platinum motherboard, with 2 GB of DDR2 1066 MHz memory and a ASUS Radeon HD 4870 TOP graphics card. All components were set to run at stock speeds. The chip was put through Super Pi 1M and 32M, Cinebench R10, PiFast Multithreaded, WPrime 1.5, Aquamark and 3DMark06. 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Dec 23, 2008)

I'm feeling this Phenom II. Welcome back AMD! Some of us never lost the faith!


----------



## btarunr (Dec 23, 2008)

Many Thanks to cdawall for sending this in.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Dec 23, 2008)

wooooooooooooooo


----------



## lemonadesoda (Dec 23, 2008)

Oh crumbs, those results are poor. My Q6600 in my DDR1 AGP system pulls better scores at 2.7GHz.  At least AMD is offereing a competitive "second tier" CPU. Let's hope pricing and power/heat make this things very competitive.  But ULTIMATE machines need to be built on Intel. 

Sadly, with Nehalem, and i7, AMD are in big big trouble.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Dec 23, 2008)

alot better than what ive seen in the past with amd..now if these chips clock..watch out core i7 theres a new sherriff in town


----------



## Binge (Dec 23, 2008)

AthlonX2 said:


> watch out core i7 theres a new sherriff in town


----------



## johnnyfiive (Dec 23, 2008)

AthlonX2 said:


> alot better than what ive seen in the past with amd..now if these chips clock..watch out *Q6600* theres a new sherriff in town



Fixed.


----------



## Dark_Webster (Dec 23, 2008)

Well, at least they managed to equal Conroe's performance(on Super PI)...


----------



## trabanom (Dec 23, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> Oh crumbs, those results are poor. My Q6600 in my DDR1 AGP system pulls better scores at 2.7GHz.  At least AMD is offereing a competitive "second tier" CPU. Let's hope pricing and power/heat make this things very competitive.  But ULTIMATE machines need to be built on Intel.
> 
> Sadly, with Nehalem, and i7, AMD are in big big trouble.



I dont get it. If you go to http://www.yougamers.com/hardware/stats/3dmark06/7days/ you will see Q6600 have done 8161. Phenom II X4 did 15457, 47% more with only 20% more clock. Something is not right with you score.


----------



## DarkMatter (Dec 23, 2008)

trabanom said:


> I dont get it. If you go to http://www.yougamers.com/hardware/stats/3dmark06/7days/ you will see Q6600 have done 8161. Phenom II X4 did 15457, 47% more with only 20% more clock. Something is not right with you score.



Yeah and if you look better you'll see that the Q9550 which is suposed to be faster than the Q6600 does 3040!!



You realize that those charts are representing the number of participants that have that specific model right??


----------



## Polarman (Dec 23, 2008)

Nice. They was pretty cool that they tested it with the same board i just purchased. 

This just made my stupid day better.


----------



## aCid888* (Dec 23, 2008)

My E6750 does a better job of SuperPi @ 3GHz than this does...thats shocking.


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 23, 2008)

aCid888* said:


> My E6750 does a better job of SuperPi @ 3GHz than this does...thats shocking.



Meh, AMD processors never have really been able to calculate out to 1,000,000 digits of pi very quickly, I presume they over there just don't deem that important.  I know people say that test is optimized for intel, but I would like specifics on which instruction set intel is using that allows them to calculate that so well, cause I don't buy it.

At any rate, these come in around $200 and that's win. Much higher and it's just more of the same (amd coming several months late to the party and offering no compelling reason to choose them over intel).


----------



## Binge (Dec 23, 2008)

these are set to cost more than $200ish


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 23, 2008)

Binge said:


> these are set to cost more than $200ish



I know, but you never know, things can change, and hopefully AMD won't simply attempt to operate under the assumption that people will buy it b/c it's AMD (although that would be partially correct) and if these are accurate numbers they will price it accordingly (not just to match intel, but to beat them, badly).


----------



## cdawall (Dec 23, 2008)

since gaming is a better result group than sp1m here is a Q6600@3.22ghz







score is w/i a couple 100pts of the phenom running 220mhz slower with shit as far as the ram goes







here is one @ 3ghz notice how it scores less


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 23, 2008)

^^ The cpu score on said bench is roughly the same at the same speeds (within 100 points). Note that the q6600 is now less than $200 and 2 years old. So, if this is a worthwhile bench, then I guess perhaps the 940 should be much less than $200, I'm not so sure gaming is that good of a bench for cpu's these days though. We need some new stuff.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 23, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> ^^ The cpu score on said bench is roughly the same at the same speeds (within 100 points). Note that the q6600 is now less than $200 and 2 years old. So, if this is a worthwhile bench, then I guess perhaps the 940 should be much less than $200, I'm not so sure gaming is that good of a bench for cpu's these days though. We need some new stuff.



i figured that would make more sense bench wise than SP which AMD has always done poorly on.


best would be cinebench haven't found the benchies i want for that though


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 23, 2008)

cdawall said:


> i figured that would make more sense bench wise than SP which AMD has always done poorly on.
> 
> 
> best would be cinebench haven't found the benchies i want for that though



Yeah it is a bit better, I'm just curious as to why AMD always does poorly on that test. Truly test bias, or truly slower architecture? Perhaps a combination of both. Cine is good, somebody did winrar in another thread I think which I though would be a real good "real-world" bench. Sandra was among the first i7 benches and a very effective bench that doesn't seem to be used very often for some reason despite it's power and validity.


----------



## jydie (Dec 23, 2008)

Why they are running SuperPi on a multicore system!?!?  Last I knew, SuperPi was not multithreaded... so the extra cores do very little to lower the time.  To lower the time in the SuperPi test, you need to raise the speed of the CPU.  There is one test you can do with SuperPi to show off the benefit of 4 cores... kick off 4 SuperPi's at the same time and do the same on a single or dual core system.  The quad system should finish all 4 tests far sooner then the single or dual core systems.

Oh... and just as I question running SuperPi on this system, what is up with Aquamark?  That is one OLD test and I doubt it is multi-threaded???


----------



## cdawall (Dec 23, 2008)

jydie said:


> Why they are running SuperPi on a multicore system!?!?  Last I knew, SuperPi was not multithreaded... so the extra cores do very little to lower the time.  To lower the time in the SuperPi test, you need to raise the speed of the CPU.  There is one test you can do with SuperPi to show off the benefit of 4 cores... kick off 4 SuperPi's at the same time and do the same on a single or dual core system.  The quad system should finish all 4 tests far sooner then the single or dual core systems.
> 
> Oh... and just as I question running SuperPi on this system, what is up with Aquamark?  That is one OLD test and I doubt it is multi-threaded???



its not multithreaded either but does show a true similarity between the P2 and C2Q


----------



## Woody112 (Dec 23, 2008)

Not bad but 1.352v for 3ghz.


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 23, 2008)

Woody112 said:


> Not bad but 1.352v for 3ghz.



Wow I didn't even realize that. What's going on here, can we get some 9950 comparisons? Did they just up the voltage and clock speed a bit, create more headroom and slap a new sticker on it? How is this even that much better than Phenom I?


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 23, 2008)

How about we just wait for some real world benchmarks, perhaps? TRT740, myself and ascstinger will all have 945 BE ES chips within the week, and then we'll see.



farlex85 said:


> Sorry I'm not trying to make it fanboyish if your referring to my comments, this just seems quite disappointing, I have visions of competition dancing in my head.....



You can keep that vision, it just needs to be against the penryn and not i7. i7 is on another level, performance wise and PRICE wise.


----------



## Woody112 (Dec 23, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Wow I didn't even realize that. What's going on here, can we get some 9950 comparisons? Did they just up the voltage and clock speed a bit, create more headroom and slap a new sticker on it? How is this even that much better than Phenom I?



Now I know why all those other bench marks floating around here on TPU had a black bar going across the voltage on CPU-z.
I'm not going to BS anyone I've always been an intel fan but was actually considering the possibility of making a jump to AMD. Still may if prices are really good.


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 23, 2008)

Paulieg said:


> How about we just wait for some real world benchmarks, perhaps? TRT740, myself and ascstinger will all have 945 BE ES chips within the week, and then we'll see.



Ah yes that's what we need some TPU benching. Can I put in an early request for some Sandra tests?



Woody112 said:


> Now I know why all those other bench marks floating around here on TPU had a black bar going across the voltage on CPU-z.
> I'm not going to BS anyone I've always been an intel fan but was actually considering the possibility of making a jump to AMD. Still may if prices are really good.



I've been getting excited by the hype wanting prices to come down in a nice CPU war, but these look incredibly lackluster. Barely matching a 2 year old proc at a projected $275 while using more voltage? No thanks. We shall see though, there is still hope.


----------



## insider (Dec 23, 2008)

That is very poor and embarassing for AMD, my Q6600 @3GHz could manage 12K+ in cinebench with ease.


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 23, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Ah yes that's what we need some TPU benching. Can I put in an early request for some Sandra tests?



without a doubt. I just hate all of the fanboy slamming even before release. Just drives me nuts.


----------



## Woody112 (Dec 23, 2008)

Paulieg said:


> How about we just wait for some real world benchmarks, perhaps? TRT740, myself and ascstinger will all have 945 BE ES chips within the week, and then we'll see.



Looking forward to a proper review.


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 23, 2008)

Paulieg said:


> without a doubt. I just hate all of the fanboy slamming even before release. Just drives me nuts.



Sorry I'm not trying to make it fanboyish if your referring to my comments, this just seems quite disappointing, I have visions of competition dancing in my head.....


----------



## Woody112 (Dec 23, 2008)

Paulieg said:


> without a doubt. I just hate all of the fanboy slamming even before release. Just drives me nuts.



I wasn't trying to slam anything, if thats what you were referring to.:shadedshu


----------



## jydie (Dec 23, 2008)

Woody112 said:


> Looking forward to a proper review.



I second that!!


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 23, 2008)

Guys, these take voltage better than Intel chips. 1.3v is like 1.2v on an Intel CPU.


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 23, 2008)

Woody112 said:


> I wasn't trying to slam anything, if thats what you were referring to.:shadedshu



No, not you specifically. .


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 23, 2008)

Paulieg said:


> You can keep that vision, it just needs to be against the penryn and not i7. i7 is on another level, performance wise and PRICE wise.



I can handle penryn like performance, so long as it beats penryn prices (by a healthy margin preferably). I can't get excited about something that does what someone else already did several months ago, a year ago, 2 years ago, for the same price. If these are projected to come in at $270 or so and like these benches say only perform on par w/ a q6600, that's just disappointing. But, I will hold out until you guys get your hands on them and we get some more in depth reviews, perhaps a surprise awaits. Not like I'm buying anything this month anyway.


----------



## aCid888* (Dec 23, 2008)

They both don't look so good when put against this E8400 of mine on this shitty DFI board that likes to die.


----------



## r9 (Dec 23, 2008)

What do you expect from Phenom II I don`t know. Q6600 was beating Phenom I all day long now we have Phenom II that has no design improvements only larger L3 cache and we all know how much AMD processors benefit from larger cache ZERO.
Intel could do nothing after Q6600 and still be in front of AMD. They could just make 45nm Q6600 and that is what it take to master Phenom II.
That is just pitifull. 
I don`t know what AMD are thinking.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 23, 2008)

dont know how true this is but its worth a look  
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1376983


----------



## Melvis (Dec 23, 2008)

aCid888* said:


> They both don't look so good when put against this E8400 of mine on this shitty DFI board that likes to die.



Just proves to show that Quad cores are not any good for this test!!

We need something that is multi threaded that can utilize all four cores, then we might see how a quad core is meant to run.


----------



## Steevo (Dec 23, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Wow I didn't even realize that. What's going on here, can we get some 9950 comparisons? Did they just up the voltage and clock speed a bit, create more headroom and slap a new sticker on it? How is this even that much better than Phenom I?



Votage leak is nominal on the CPU, so all the voltage is actually going to work rather than keeping the current high enough in the core to do the work. So higher voltage is not what it used to be with this CPU.


One last thought, remember the 48XX cards and how they were setup before the launch? It is very possible all extrenal engineering samples are not what the final product will be.


----------



## HTC (Dec 23, 2008)

Woody112 said:


> Not bad but 1.352v for 3ghz.



You're like comparing apple juice to lemon juice in terms of acidity: P II voltage is *very different* the Intel / previous AMD procs.



ShadowFold said:


> Guys, these take voltage better than Intel chips. 1.3v is like 1.2v on an Intel CPU.



I'm thinking less, even. IIRC, there were reported load temps of less then 50º with 1.5+ Vcore.

Did the reviewers make temps screenies?



Steevo said:


> Votage leak is nominal on the CPU, so all the voltage is actually going to work rather than keeping the current high enough in the core to do the work. So higher voltage is not what it used to be with this CPU.



This is why temps on P II are better then Intel / older AMD procs.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 23, 2008)

AMD has always run @ higher volts than intel?


----------



## HTC (Dec 23, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Just proves to show that Quad cores are not any good for this test!!
> 
> We need something that is multi threaded that can utilize all four cores, then we might see how a quad core is meant to run.



Encode a movie: aren't encoding progs multi threaded?

Using the same settings, encode any movie with both procs @ same speed and check the result.


----------



## miloshs (Dec 23, 2008)

*retail?*

Seriously if ths chip is going to sell at a 200$ mark then its a winner in any case, but on the real world side...   i doubt it will be that cheap, FGS the 9950's are selling at 200$ price point...


Im expecting low 250$...

And a suggestion for Pauleig...  when you get the chip, you can also do a OC test on a 790FX/SB600 board just to see how it fares compared to 790GX/SB750 boards...  
Would be nice to see if we people of the SB600 group really need to change to GX's or not...


----------



## Melvis (Dec 23, 2008)

r9 said:


> What do you expect from Phenom II I don`t know. Q6600 was beating Phenom I all day long now we have Phenom II that has no design improvements only larger L3 cache and we all know how much AMD processors benefit from larger cache ZERO.
> Intel could do nothing after Q6600 and still be in front of AMD. They could just make 45nm Q6600 and that is what it take to master Phenom II.
> That is just pitifull.
> I don`t know what AMD are thinking.



I don't know what you are thinking, but far as i know AMD did a list of improvements on this new Phenom apart from just cashe sizes, i remember looking back in some old threads and seeing a list of about 10 different improvements, i cant remember what but there was a fare few. And to get over 6GHz is Phenomenal, so i think they have done a bit more improvements then the previous Phenom some how, which never really got past 3.4Ghz.


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 23, 2008)

miloshs said:


> Seriously if ths chip is going to sell at a 200$ mark then its a winner in any case, but on the real world side...   i doubt it will be that cheap, FGS the 9950's are selling at 200$ price point...
> 
> 
> Im expecting low 250$...
> ...



If someone loans me one, I'd be happy to. From what I hear about SB600 is that it can work. There is a guy at [H] with a chip like I'm getting, and I believe it posts about half the time.


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 23, 2008)

The Phenom II's have ACC built in. The reason SB600 sucked at OC'ing is because it was missing ACC and a few other features than are built into the PII's.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 23, 2008)

HTC said:


> Encode a movie: aren't encoding progs multi threaded?
> 
> Using the same settings, encode any movie with both procs @ same speed and check the result.


I use Any video converter to encode my movies... there you can select 0-8 cores for encoding... if its selected 0-8 before the encode is started say 4 for AMD its wicked fast... id love to see it in action with the I7 and set the encode cores to 8


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 23, 2008)

well heres a price from a supplier here in Canada for the P II ... a little spendee id say..
http://www.infonec.com/site/main.php?module=catalog&catID=1585


----------



## Melvis (Dec 23, 2008)

HTC said:


> Encode a movie: aren't encoding progs multi threaded?
> 
> Using the same settings, encode any movie with both procs @ same speed and check the result.



Umm i think so, i just did the other day a movie that was a AVI file and transcoded to all VOB files, and it was using all four cores for this, and i was surprised it could utilize all four cores been such a old program. Shame i don't have a Q6600 to test along side the 9950 BE that i have at the moment. All i can say is that it did the movie a good 35% faster then my FX-57 and was only using 30% of all the CPU's

SO yea that's what we need same set up and a program that utilizes all four cores and at the same clock speed, i agree with you there


----------



## Woody112 (Dec 23, 2008)

HTC said:


> You're like comparing apple juice to lemon juice in terms of acidity: P II voltage is *very different* the Intel / previous AMD procs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Voltage is voltage. The only difference between intel and amd is in how its used and which architecture is using it more efficiently, and efficiency is what I'm looking at. So if it takes more voltage to operate at 3ghz then it's not more efficent than a processor running at the same speed with less voltage. Temp means nothing when it comes to this as architecture plays a big part. Good example more transistors more resistance= more heat.


----------



## HTC (Dec 23, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> I use Any video converter to encode my movies... there you can select 0-8 cores for encoding... if its selected 0-8 before the encode is started say 4 for AMD its wicked fast... id love to see it in action with the I7 and set the encode cores to 8



The test can be done, with regards to i7, with and without HT.

As long as the speed is the same and the encoding settings are as well, it should give us a more accurate picture of how good / bad a P II is VS i7.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 23, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> The Phenom II's have ACC built in. The reason SB600 sucked at OC'ing is because it was missing ACC and a few other features than are built into the PII's.


ACC blah blah.... i had the 600sb mobo and went up to the 750sb mobo... ACC is so mis-understood... i can only get this cpu to run the same clocks as the 600sb system with ACC off... if i wana bump the cpu volt to 1.62v and set ACC to +4 than yeah it works but not very stable.... all i know is i should have saved my money rather than buying this new mobo and went for the I7 setup..:shadedshu


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 23, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> well heres a price from a supplier here in Canada for the P II ... a little spendee id say..
> http://www.infonec.com/site/main.php?module=catalog&catID=1585



That's 295$ USD.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 23, 2008)

HTC said:


> The test can be done, with regards to i7, with and without HT.
> 
> As long as the speed is the same and the encoding settings are as well, it should give us a more accurate picture of how good / bad a P II is VS i7.


well if someone wants to post a link to download a video to convert id be glad to run it against the I7 @ 3.01GHz just to see how quick the I7 is.... thats a true test imo cpu against cpu

This might settle some ppl down lol


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 23, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> That's 295$ USD.


about $ 95 dollars to much


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 23, 2008)

I don't think that's right tho. My guess is it will be 250$ at the most. I don't think AMD could afford to have it at 300$...


----------



## wolf2009 (Dec 23, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> well if someone wants to post a link to download a video to convert id be glad to run it against the I7 @ 3.01GHz just to see how quick the I7 is.... thats a true test imo cpu against cpu
> 
> This might settle some ppl down lol



do this x264 HD benchmark 

http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=520


----------



## miloshs (Dec 23, 2008)

295$ is a bit too much for my taste...  i could live with 250$ (and thats if i succeed in selling my 9950 for at least 170-190$ since its still under warranty)...   but 295$, hmmmm  

920 is supposed to have locked multi?



			
				fullinfusion said:
			
		

> about $ 95 dollars to much



+1


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 23, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> That's 295$ USD.



Yes, and about right. The lower prices you guys are seeing is for quantity orders. 940 retail prices will be $275-$300 at launch. Which considering that performance is most likely sandwiched in between the Q9550 and Q9650, it's a good value, as I believe newegg still has the Q9550 at $319.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 23, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> I don't think that's right tho. My guess is it will be 250$ at the most. I don't think AMD could afford to have it at 300$...


I agree with ya there SF.... since its pre order it's likely  a deposit that they'll give back as credit when the price has been finalized


----------



## miloshs (Dec 23, 2008)

^ Let us just hope youre right...

P.S. just tested my stock 9950, and its 20-ish % slower in 32M SP in relation to 940 from #1 post...


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 23, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> do this x264 HD benchmark
> 
> http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=520


ok ill be back soon with results


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 23, 2008)

miloshs said:


> 295$ is a bit too much for my taste...  i could live with 250$ (and thats if i succeed in selling my 9950 for at least 170-190$ since its still under warranty)...   but 295$, hmmmm
> 
> 920 is supposed to have locked multi?
> 
> ...



You really have to consider the performance to price point. Please read my post above. I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here, but please remember that the 9950 was close to $270 at launch, wasn't it?


----------



## Melvis (Dec 23, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> That's 295$ USD.



gezzz that's a good price  cost me $314 for a 9950 BE just a week or so ago :shadedshu

I hate to think how much it will be here then =/


----------



## von kain (Dec 23, 2008)

Woody112 said:


> Looking forward to a proper review.



true plus since is not in everyones hands wait until that happens


----------



## miloshs (Dec 23, 2008)

Paulieg said:


> You really have to consider the performance to price point. Please read my post above. I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here, but please remember that the 9950 was close to $270 at launch, wasn't it?



I get what youre saying, no problem with that... im just claiming that its too much for me to buy it right as it starts selling ...

The problem is if i see a CPU that retails at 300$ in the US...  i have great odds that it will be close to 300 euro here... so thats a bit too much


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 23, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> ok ill be back soon with results


so i got it to run but what exactly do i click on to run the test?


----------



## Woody112 (Dec 24, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> so i got it to run but what exactly do i click on to run the test?



I just got it to run had to extract the files to a separate folder then open the folder and click on the benchmark link. Dos box will open asking you to type in a name for that run. do so then click enter. It will make 4 runs with 2 passes each then it will ask you if you want to run the newer version I pressed Y for yes and it ran it again, after it finishes just hit enter then it will open up a page with your results.


----------



## miloshs (Dec 24, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> so i got it to run but what exactly do i click on to run the test?



LOL, ownage  

Dont give up mate


----------



## lemonadesoda (Dec 24, 2008)

trabanom said:


> I dont get it. If you go to http://www.yougamers.com/hardware/stats/3dmark06/7days/ you will see Q6600 have done 8161. Phenom II X4 did 15457, 47% more with only 20% more clock. Something is not right with you score.


Oh no, my scores are right. My old AGP system puts this new Phenom2 to shame:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=57401

My Q6600 at 2.7 is faster than Phenom2 at 3.0 in SuperPI and in CínebenchR10.

The Q6600 at 2.7 is a bit slower in 3Dmark06 CPU score, BUT clock4clock it is marginally faster.

I was really expecting more from AMD. This thing is going to have to be priced cheap, or be extremely low power consumption, otherwise, there is no reason to go with it.


----------



## Melvis (Dec 24, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> Oh no, my scores are right. My old AGP system puts this new Phenom2 to shame:
> 
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=57401
> 
> ...



This test has never been AMD's strong point, never ever has, its like putting a intel up against AMD in the memory test, AMD will always win, so i cant see this benchmark much to go on.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 24, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Guys, these take voltage better than Intel chips. 1.3v is like 1.2v on an Intel CPU.


That's not how it works. Besides, these haven't been out nearly long enough to determin what kind of voltages they can handle reliably. Generally, when you are on the same basic architecture, die shrinks reduce a chips ability to take voltage.



Woody112 said:


> Voltage is voltage. The only difference between intel and amd is in how its used and which architecture is using it more efficiently, and efficiency is what I'm looking at. So if it takes more voltage to operate at 3ghz then it's not more efficent than a processor running at the same speed with less voltage. Temp means nothing when it comes to this as architecture plays a big part. Good example more transistors more resistance= more heat.


But you are forgetting that this includes an IMC, whereas the normal Core 2's don't. If you want to compqare voltage differences, you have to compare it to i7.


----------



## freaksavior (Dec 24, 2008)

question?

Does super pi prove speed differences?

if yes then I dont like where they are headed.


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 24, 2008)

Melvis said:


> This test has never been AMD's strong point, never ever has, its like putting a intel up against AMD in the memory test, AMD will always win, so i cant see this benchmark much to go on.



Which tests, he listed three. Actually, i7 easily beats Phenoms in memory benches, triple channel and qpi saw to that. Perhaps AMD can regain some ground when they release the AM3 boards, but I doubt they will reclaim that crown anytime soon.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 24, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> do this x264 HD benchmark
> 
> http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=520


well here im not sure if this is what you wanted


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 24, 2008)

miloshs said:


> LOL, ownage
> 
> Dont give up mate


rite back at ya mate


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 24, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> well here im not sure if this is what you wanted


 why is it showing sb is 700 when its really a 750sb?


----------



## HTC (Dec 24, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> well here im not sure if this is what you wanted
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/081223/a11767.jpg



Now: if some owner of a Q6600 would be so kind as to run this bench @ 3 GHz, we could compare results.


----------



## Woody112 (Dec 24, 2008)

Wile E said:


> That's not how it works. Besides, these haven't been out nearly long enough to determin what kind of voltages they can handle reliably. Generally, when you are on the same basic architecture, die shrinks reduce a chips ability to take voltage.
> 
> But you are forgetting that this includes an IMC, whereas the normal Core 2's don't. If you want to compqare voltage differences, you have to compare it to i7.



I under stand that, I was comparing it to the i7-940. Intel rates it at operating from 0.800-1.225v and thats for 2.93ghz.
http://ark.intel.com/cpu.aspx?groupID=37148

I havn't bought into the i-7 yet simply because I'm waiting for the PII to release. If the PII can compete then I'm making the switch to AMD. But if not, then well I'll get an i7.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Dec 24, 2008)

Melvis said:


> This test has never been AMD's strong point, never ever has, its like putting a intel up against AMD in the memory test, AMD will always win, so i cant see this benchmark much to go on.


Eh? I quoted three tests. Actually, l only *BOTHERED *to quote three tests, since the others are essentially similar in what they are doing/showing/calculating, and the point was already demonstrated.

OK, so let's add another: Aquamark3. Q6600 at 2.7 is faster than Phenom2 at 3.0

All that is left to test is wPrime. I havent run that test on my Q6600. Perhaps, when I get the time I will. But _really_, Q6600 at 2.7 is beating the Phenom2 on the other 4 tests AND it is doing that on POOR DDR1 that we know doesnt have the bandwidth of AMD memory interconnect. Do I _really _need to run another test?


----------



## HTC (Dec 24, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> well here im not sure if this is what you wanted
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/081223/a11767.jpg





lemonadesoda said:


> Eh? I quoted three tests. Actually, l only *BOTHERED *to quote three tests, since the others are essentially similar in what they are doing/showing/calculating, and the point was already demonstrated.
> 
> OK, so let's add another: Aquamark3. Q6600 at 2.7 is faster than Phenom2 at 3.0
> 
> All that is left to test is wPrime. I havent run that test on my Q6600. Perhaps, when I get the time I will. But _really_, Q6600 at 2.7 is beating the Phenom2 on the other 4 tests AND it is doing that on POOR DDR1 that we know doesnt have the bandwidth of AMD memory interconnect. Do I _really _need to run another test?



Do you mind running the test of the 1st quote (@ 3 GHz, if possible)?


----------



## rodneyhchef (Dec 24, 2008)

Here ya go. Looks like AMD does pretty good at this one.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 24, 2008)

Yeah. AMD is actually quite strong at encoding.


----------



## Melvis (Dec 24, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Which tests, he listed three. Actually, i7 easily beats Phenoms in memory benches, triple channel and qpi saw to that. Perhaps AMD can regain some ground when they release the AM3 boards, but I doubt they will reclaim that crown anytime soon.



Pi is the test i meant, i have never seen i7 benchmarks for memory, and i know the AMD X2's will easy beat Phenom X4 in memory tests so if i7 beats Phenom then no surprise there.O well and also that the new i7 is similar to AMD's now anyway with the new OBMC so that would of helped a lot.

I agree i can't seem them reclaiming the crown, but with what ive seen they have improved alot and will equal if not beat C2D and that's pretty good, but we will see at lunch time.
All im interested in is gaming performance, and also encoding , transcoding etc more then anything else.


----------



## Melvis (Dec 24, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> Eh? I quoted three tests. Actually, l only *BOTHERED *to quote three tests, since the others are essentially similar in what they are doing/showing/calculating, and the point was already demonstrated.
> 
> OK, so let's add another: Aquamark3. Q6600 at 2.7 is faster than Phenom2 at 3.0
> 
> All that is left to test is wPrime. I havent run that test on my Q6600. Perhaps, when I get the time I will. But _really_, Q6600 at 2.7 is beating the Phenom2 on the other 4 tests AND it is doing that on POOR DDR1 that we know doesnt have the bandwidth of AMD memory interconnect. Do I _really _need to run another test?



Naa its cool, i wasn't specific sorry, i wrote what i meant to farlex85.

I already know about the memory results for both so that's all good.

Thanks for doing all the tests tho


----------



## freaksavior (Dec 24, 2008)

freaksavior said:


> question?
> 
> Does super pi prove speed differences?
> 
> if yes then I dont like where they are headed.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
before it gets long gone in this thread


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 24, 2008)

AMD has never been good at pi. idk why tho.


----------



## Woody112 (Dec 24, 2008)

Here's a under clocked 9770 for a comparison.


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 24, 2008)

freaksavior said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> before it gets long gone in this thread



Yeah I was trying to find some info on the source code in hopes of perhaps finding out why intel seems to do so much better at this test but I came up empty. I'm imagining there is some instruction set that is perhaps used more heavily in intel architecture. It would be interesting to perhaps try some other software for calculating the same thing as related here. I wonder if the results would be similar. Pifast or Quickpi. Anyone wanna give a go?

Here's some Pifast w/ my e6750 @ 3200. 1.34s using settings up top. Maybe some AMD comparison?


----------



## lemonadesoda (Dec 24, 2008)

HTC said:


> Do you mind running the test of the 1st quote (@ 3 GHz, if possible)?


Sorry, HTC, I cant do 3.0 on my AGP system. I can only OC to 2.7Ghz (300FSB max). 

Saw that rodneychef did a Q6600 at 3.0... let me know if a 2.7 DDR1 test is important to you, and I'll do it tomorrow when I'm at that PC


----------



## HTC (Dec 24, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> Sorry, HTC, I cant do 3.0 on my AGP system. I can only OC to 2.7Ghz (300FSB max).
> 
> Saw that rodneychef did a Q6600 at 3.0... let me know if a 2.7 DDR1 test is important to you, and I'll do it tomorrow when I'm at that PC



There's no need: the dude already ran it.

Thanks, anyway!


----------



## freaksavior (Dec 24, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Yeah I was trying to find some info on the source code in hopes of perhaps finding out why intel seems to do so much better at this test but I came up empty. I'm imagining there is some instruction set that is perhaps used more heavily in intel architecture. It would be interesting to perhaps try some other software for calculating the same thing as related here. I wonder if the results would be similar. Pifast or Quickpi. Anyone wanna give a go?
> 
> Here's some Pifast w/ my e6750 @ 3200. 1.34s using settings up top. Maybe some AMD comparison?



Ok, so amd may have a chance?


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 24, 2008)

freaksavior said:


> Ok, so amd may have a chance?



I don't know it could be that the reason intel does superpi faster is that its just simply that much faster, at least at certain calculations. Or it could be the software, t'would take some investigation methinks.


----------



## Melvis (Dec 24, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> I don't know it could be that the reason intel does superpi faster is that its just simply that much faster, at least at certain calculations. Or it could be the software, t'would take some investigation methinks.



Id say software or just how intels are designed, because even the old P4's beat AMD back then in Pi. So AMD has no hope in this benchmark.


----------



## Darren (Dec 24, 2008)

I've heard some ridiculous things in this thread.

They only benchmarked a few applications, Super PI, Cine Bench, Aqua Marks, 3D Marks.  These are synthetically benchmarks which do not support the correct number of threads.  To make these benchmarks meaningful they at least 10-20 benchmarks, with a full analysis of each test, analysis of results, etc.

People keep talking about Super PI, AMD have never done well in Super PI, so why would they now? Just because a Q6600 performs well in Super PI it doesn't mean its an overall better than the Phenom II 940.  This is evident as the Phenom 9950 X4 was just as fast as the Q6600 yet Super PI favoured the Q6600 despite other benchmarks not favouring the Q6600. 

We've already seen previews of the Phenom II 940 sometimes beating the i7 920s and trading blows with the i7 940 despite the Phenom using DDR2, it's only slightly slower than the i7 940, think of how the Phenom II would perform with DDR3. Most probably on par or better. So for anyone to suggest that the Q6600 is on par with the Phenom II 940 is just stupid, especially if they are basing it on Super PI. 

Let's wait for the proper reviews from established websites before we judge the Phenoms any further.

Edit:



farlex85 said:


> Where did you see those where the 940 trades w/ the i7? I hope your not referring to the Crysis bench of things ending up w/i half a frame of each other. Talk about irrelevant benches.....



I've been following these previews on TPU for a while now, search the forums, they've been posted a few times already.

Half a frame is still trading blows, but Crysis isn't a good benchmark I must admit.


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 24, 2008)

Darren said:


> I've heard some ridiculous things in this thread.
> 
> They only benchmarked a few applications, Super PI, Cine Bench, Aqua Marks, 3D Marks.  These are synthetically benchmarks which do not support the correct number of threads.  To make these benchmarks meaningful they at least 10-20 benchmarks, with a full analysis of each test, analysis of results, etc.
> 
> ...



Where did you see those where the 940 trades w/ the i7? I hope your not referring to the Crysis bench of things ending up w/i half a frame of each other. Talk about irrelevant benches.....


----------



## wolf2009 (Dec 24, 2008)

damn, forget the pi . 

x264 encoding is where true CPU performance is at. And AMD looks quite good at beating Intel Penryn Quads at that. Even a 9850 is close enough to them ,

here's Q9450 at 3.2 Ghz


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 24, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> damn, forget the pi .
> 
> x264 encoding is where true CPU performance is at. And AMD looks quite good at beating Intel Penryn Quads at that. Even a 9850 is close enough to them ,
> 
> here's Q9450 at 3.2 Ghz



Perhaps I'm reading these wrong but they seem to be performing very similarly to each other (penryn and PII) in this bench. Almost identically in fact (unless that closeness is normal).


----------



## wolf2009 (Dec 24, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Perhaps I'm reading these wrong but they seem to be performing very similarly to each other (penryn and PII) in this bench. Almost identically in fact (unless that closeness is normal.



there is not a PII bench in this thread with this bench, 

the AMD processor you up there is 9850 Black edition


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 24, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> there is not a PII bench in this thread with this bench,
> 
> the AMD processor you up there is 9850 Black edition



Indeed. Interesting.......


----------



## Woody112 (Dec 24, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Perhaps I'm reading these wrong but they seem to be performing very similarly to each other (penryn and PII) in this bench. Almost identically in fact (unless that closeness is normal.



Their going to be close. This bench mark isn't like others where they just blow each other out of the water. A few frames per second is actually a bit more than it seems, if you know what I mean. 
But ya the PII is performing exceptionally well. As you can see above I clocked my x9770 to 3.0ghz 7.5x400 and was only a couple frames above in the second run and was actually beat in a few runs on the first test.


----------



## wolf2009 (Dec 24, 2008)

Woody112 said:


> Their going to be close. This bench mark isn't like others where they just blow each other out of the water. A few frames per second is actually a bit more than it seems, if you know what I mean.
> But ya the PII is performing exceptionally well. As you can see above I clocked my x9770 to 3.0ghz 7.5x400 and was only a couple frames above in the second run and was actually beat in a few runs on the first test.



That is not a PII , thats a 9850 Black edition


----------



## Woody112 (Dec 24, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Indeed. Interesting.......



Didn't notice that, crap Now I really want to see that PII in action Go AMD


----------



## wolf2009 (Dec 24, 2008)

Woody112 said:


> Didn't notice that, crap Now I really want to see that PII in action Go AMD



yes Go AMD . 

x264 acc to me is the most accurate CPU Benchmark and it is not biased or optimized for either processor. 

It contains optimizations for both Intel and AMD, if I am not wrong. 

The developers were talking about adding Corei7 optimizations into the upcoming builds of x264. I'm sure PII will get some too for its own strengths. 

Another thing , x264 doesn't use SSE4 (acc to developers it is crap), so no advantage for Intel there.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 24, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> yes Go AMD .
> 
> x264 acc to me is the most accurate CPU Benchmark and it is not biased or optimized for either processor.
> 
> ...


No, it's not the most accurate bench. No bench is. Every architecture is going to have it's strong points and weak points in different bench types.

To prove my point, when A64 and P4 were the 2 cpus out, the P4 outran the A64s in encoding. Yet we all know that a P4 is not faster than an A64.


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 24, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> yes Go AMD .
> 
> x264 acc to me is the most accurate CPU Benchmark and it is not biased or optimized for either processor.
> 
> ...



Well see, the thing is if a program uses SSE4 or something like that, it gets more relevant to me, b/c in "real-world" app your intel proc will be using those instructions. A very good bench isn't one that doesn't use something one camp has and the other one doesn't, it's one that maximizes the strengths of each so that each get a full bench. If it doesn't use SSE4 then I would argue it's skewed. 

Also, people like to toss around optimization like they have seen the source code and know what they are talking about (not directed at you), but I don't buy it most of the time. It just depends. Like Darren said earlier a good collection of many benches is needed for the best idea, b/c no one can give a complete picture.


----------



## Woody112 (Dec 24, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> yes Go AMD .
> 
> x264 acc to me is the most accurate CPU Benchmark and it is not biased or optimized for either processor.
> 
> ...



Very true, wish it was used more by product reviewers. 
Still trying to pick my jaw up off the ground after seeing that it was a 9850 on that bench run. WOW.


----------



## wolf2009 (Dec 24, 2008)

alright, I stand corrected


----------



## Wile E (Dec 24, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> alright, I stand corrected



It's still a good benchmark tho. Especially for those who deem encoding important. Everything is relevant to some degree. Encoding is important to me, but my Intel clocks higher, negating the per clock advantage of Phenom.

And that's where it all hinges for me. I need to know 2 things about cpus I am comparing to buy. First, how do they compare clock for clock, and second, how high do they clock?

Now, even if CPU1 is 15% faster per clock than CPU2, but CPU2 clocks 30% higher, guess which one I'm gonna buy. lol.


----------



## Darren (Dec 24, 2008)

Woody112 said:


> Still trying to pick my jaw up off the ground after seeing that it was a 9850 on that bench run. WOW.



Indeed. 

The Pheonom 9850 and Phenom 9950 are fantastic processors, ashame that Intel fan boys didn't realise that when they contributed to damaging AMDs reputation.


----------



## Woody112 (Dec 24, 2008)

Wile E said:


> No, it's not the most accurate bench. No bench is. Every architecture is going to have it's strong points and weak points in different bench types.
> 
> To prove my point, when A64 and P4 were the 2 cpus out, the P4 outran the A64s in encoding. Yet we all know that a P4 is not faster than an A64.



Not trying to criticize or anything but why is it that when either AMD or Intel releases benchmarks for upcoming CPU's, their blowing the competitors out of the water. Then we all have to wait for an unbiased review for accurate results, usually done here at TPU.
Can't help but wonder if its like Nvidia and ATI. One game optimized better for one card than the other you know.
I've always felt that encoding was pretty much an unbiased benchmark tool. But as you stated above and have a valid point about the A64 and the P4.


----------



## Woody112 (Dec 24, 2008)

Darren said:


> Indeed.
> 
> The Pheonom 9850 and Phenom 9950 are fantastic processors, ashame that Intel fan boys didn't realise that when they contributed to damaging AMDs reputation.



Isn't that the truth.
I've owned my fair share of AMD chips but when I made the jump to and E6600 I haven't looked back till now.
I have new found respect for AMD.


----------



## 3dsage (Dec 24, 2008)

Why doesnt anyone bench a P2 on WPRIME??


----------



## Melvis (Dec 24, 2008)

Darren said:


> Indeed.
> 
> The Pheonom 9850 and Phenom 9950 are fantastic processors, ashame that Intel fan boys didn't realise that when they contributed to damaging AMDs reputation.



I second that, i have a m8 that is impossible to change his mind on, he is strictly intel, seagate, and Nvidia, as soon as you mention the other brands he just ignores you and says the horrible, and nasty, and would never touch them, and doesn't respect them at all. I haven't seen many on here that do the same which is good, but some that come close. Its people like my m8 who makes AMD look stupid when there not, and poor performers when they clearly arnt.
How long did it take intel fan boys to realize that the P4 was crap, and that AMD ran alot cooler then intel did, a very long time.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 24, 2008)

3dsage said:


> Why doesnt anyone bench a P2 on WPRIME??


we do!!!
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=77369


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 24, 2008)

Melvis said:


> I second that, i have a m8 that is impossible to change his mind on, he is strictly intel, seagate, and Nvidia, as soon as you mention the other brands he just ignores you and says the horrible, and nasty, and would never touch them, and doesn't respect them at all. I haven't seen many on here that do the same which is good, but some that come close. Its people like my m8 who makes AMD look stupid when there not, and poor performers when they clearly arnt.
> How long did it take intel fan boys to realize that the P4 was crap, and that AMD ran alot cooler then intel did, a very long time.



I think the word fanboy is tossed around too much here, people seem to jump on the defensive or offensive when someone (like myself ) criticizes something or questions the brand. I am easily swayed by objective results, as are most, but I am skeptical when I see numbers like those on the first page, just as some are elated when they see other numbers I would consider meaningless. It's a perspective thing. Your m8 there is irrational, and that sort of thinking could be called fanboyish, but I see that term extended to people all the time and it sort of ruins discussions imo. We can objectively debate and discuss the results (as I think we have done fairly well here) w/o putting on a red or blue shirt.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 24, 2008)

Wile E said:


> It's still a good benchmark tho. Especially for those who deem encoding important. Everything is relevant to some degree. Encoding is important to me, but my Intel clocks higher, negating the per clock advantage of Phenom.
> 
> And that's where it all hinges for me. I need to know 2 things about cpus I am comparing to buy. First, how do they compare clock for clock, and second, how high do they clock?
> 
> Now, even if CPU1 is 15% faster per clock than CPU2, but CPU2 clocks 30% higher, guess which one I'm gonna buy. lol.


Yeah but where's the fun in clocking such a easy proc Eg: (intel) 

Wouldn't you get a much better feeling of accomplishment  having a challenge going for a high AMD clock? (just playn)


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 24, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> Yeah but where's the fun in clocking such a easy proc Eg: (intel)
> 
> Wouldn't you get a much better feeling of accomplishment  having a challenge going for a high AMD clock? (just playn)



Depends on how fruitful the efforts are.


----------



## Darren (Dec 24, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> we do!!!
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=77369



I'm I seeing that right, 

E8200 @ 6229 MHz scores 12.152 sec 

and

Phenom 9850 @ 3318 MHz scores 11.545 sec 


In WPrime


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 24, 2008)

andy_usa said:


> Reality check... that's not going to help with those numbers. AMD is going down. Intel's just pwning them year after year. I think they should just focus on there Graphic chip business and drop the CPU competition all together. It's not like they have a chance of fighting back. They're just really so behind and there's no point catching up.



Troll alert, do not feed.


----------



## wolf2009 (Dec 24, 2008)

Darren said:


> I'm I seeing that right,
> 
> E8200 @ 6229 MHz scores 12.152 sec
> 
> ...



phenom has 2 extra cores


----------



## Darren (Dec 24, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> phenom has 2 extra cores



So I would be right to presume that WPrime supports multiple cores, why dont review sites use WPrime more often? opposed to Super Pi



andy_usa said:


> Reality check... that's not going to help with those numbers. AMD is going down. Intel's just pwning them year after year. I think they should just focus on there Graphic chip business and drop the CPU competition all together. It's not like they have a chance of fighting back. They're just really so behind and there's no point catching up.



You must be completely spasticated.

If AMD gave up on CPUs what is going to stop Intel rising the prices on their existing CPUs which are already stupidly expensive. Think boy, think.

Secondly, these reviews are previews, knowone can judge AMD until they are on the shelves and tested with DDR3 memory on a AM3 motherboard otherwise the tests are bias in comparison to Intels DDR3 on the i7.

Year after year?

I can remember when AMDs slowest Durons, and when AMDs slowest Semprons were taking out Intels fastest and most expensive chip.


----------



## farlex85 (Dec 24, 2008)

Darren said:


> So I would be right to presume that WPrime supports multiple cores, why dont review sites use WPrime more often? opposed to Super Pi



Good question. Things like that and Sandra seem to be used very seldom, instead reviewers seem to prefer to use games, superpi, and 3dmarks and the like for benches. I can understand a fair amount of the community invests into gaming, but these really aren't very good tests of cpu's and how they are used today.


----------



## btarunr (Dec 24, 2008)

andy_usa said:


> Yeah right, AMD is winning this CPU war. Funniest joke of all time. Only all you AMD fanboys would believe this.



Nobody said "winning". It's the same "nobody needs the fastest, it needs to be fast enough" mentality that made people buy Pentium 4 / Pentium D when AMD made the fastest chips. Back then they were accused of being "fanboys" by the same factions that bought the Athlon64, Athlon64 FX. Somewhat similar, the other way round today, by the people buying the Core i7s, Core 2 Duo, etc.

I totally agree AMD is far from being the best CPU maker. I disagree with the notion that their chips are substandard with the level of performance. With only two significant players in the CPU war, that's too little competition in the first place to set "standards" and declare AMD "sub-standard". My Phenom 9750 will run absolutely any x86 game today, run any app at acceptable speeds and give me an acceptable level of computing experience.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (Dec 24, 2008)

Woody112 said:


> Voltage is voltage. The only difference between intel and amd is in how its used and which architecture is using it more efficiently, and efficiency is what I'm looking at. So if it takes more voltage to operate at 3ghz then it's not more efficent than a processor running at the same speed with less voltage. Temp means nothing when it comes to this as architecture plays a big part. Good example more transistors more resistance= more heat.



AMD and INTEL have diffrent designs and prosesses used, and this is also an ES(pre retail) chip, I have seen amd chips(65nm) take 1.65--1.7v for years at a time on air without dieing, on the other hand i have seen intel chips fry at 1.55-1.65, just as the old P4/P-d chips could take insain volts and temps(90c+) and keep working like it was a cool summer day when if u pass 66c most amd chips will just error out (not die, just bsod or crash any app running) 

So yeah, wait and see benches from retail chips on diffrent platforms.

Also note that the bios on the systems used to test are far from optimized, In a few tests I have seen as much as a 20% gain on my buddys 9850be from bios flashes alone!!!!



fullinfusion said:


> ACC blah blah.... i had the 600sb mobo and went up to the 750sb mobo... ACC is so mis-understood... i can only get this cpu to run the same clocks as the 600sb system with ACC off... if i wana bump the cpu volt to 1.62v and set ACC to +4 than yeah it works but not very stable.... all i know is i should have saved my money rather than buying this new mobo and went for the I7 setup..:shadedshu



yeah, i havent even come close to maxing out my boards chipset with my current chip(4400@3.2) even when running weird devider and shit, and i have seen people i know grab 700/750 boards and have  more trouble getting to their old max clocks having to up volts and dissable stuff, makes me laugh to be honest, tho i would have just saved my money and waited on PhII then go i7, at least you would have had a chance at a bios update for ur old board(its possable, theres NOTHING stoping any maker from updating an am2+ board to support 45nm chips other then greed and lazyness!!!) 

Oh and Asus amd boards SUCK, some settings DONT DO ANYTHING and the asus bios dept confermed this with me via phone, settings like TRFC dont have any effect at all, and IF you have clocked much ram on am2/am2+ you learn pretty fast that backing the trfc out can be the diffrance between posting and loading into windows stable and having to clear your cmos and try again!!!!!(my current ram likes 127ns trfc).

Oh and SPI sucks as a bench, it was writen for intel chips, on an intel system, what do you expect?

when these come out, im hoping to see a drop in 9850/9950 prices to a price i can afford, will grab one up and replace my current cpu!!!!


----------



## btarunr (Dec 24, 2008)

I'd like to add, Deneb won't benefit from ACC-supportive southbridge chips. The dependencies for the ACC feature are built-in, according to professional overclockers who've worked with Deneb ES chips.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Dec 24, 2008)

thats abit slow isnt it?


----------



## 3dsage (Dec 24, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> we do!!!
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=77369


I meant a phenom 2, to see how it fairs with the rest of the bestest.

BTW I have the 2nd fastest X2


----------



## aCid888* (Dec 24, 2008)

btarunr said:


> My _<INSERT PROCESSOR NAME HERE>_ will run absolutely any x86 game today, run any app at acceptable speeds and give me an acceptable level of computing experience.



Enough said there really...who gives two shits if AMD is faster then Intel or Intel faster than AMD so long as you can watch your porn and play your games OK????


The only people who *really* care are the ones who want to show off their E-Penis and post scores of P5658983 in Vantage...that's pretty boring; so as long as I can game OK I don't care if I run Intel or AMD..I buy with my wallet not my penis and if AMD do well again I will be moving back to them as I was once an owner of many AMD CPUs from K6 to A64 and I loved them all! 



p.s If spending $900~ on a CPU from Intel *OR* AMD plus your Mobo/RAM makes you hard or wet, by all means good luck to you.


----------



## kid41212003 (Dec 24, 2008)

aCid888* said:


> Enough said there really...who gives two shits if AMD is faster then Intel or Intel faster than AMD so long as you can watch your porn and play your games OK????
> 
> 
> The only people who *really* care are the ones who want to show off their E-Penis and post scores of P5658983 in Vantage...that's pretty boring; so as long as I can game OK I don't care if I run Intel or AMD..I buy with my wallet not my penis and if AMD do well again I will be moving back to them as I was once an owner of many AMD CPUs from K6 to A64 and I loved them all!
> ...



Most gamers who play multiplayers games that have ranked system, is the same as this.

You're taking this as a really wrong way, tweaking your pc, and make it score higher in benchmark is not a way to show E-p, it's a way to show a result of your hard work, spending time tweaking your bios, windows, and I find it's fun.
Yeah, some people like to brag about their score, but they did they say yours is suck?

So, when someone post their high score, that's mean they're showing off their E-p? Lolz.

Phenom I is a failure in gaming. I owned one, I know how it performed. Phenom II will be different, but that's a different story.

So, I really do care about that. Because It took AMD months to adjust the price of an CPU that is not worth its price (compared to the same range price from Intel at that time).


----------



## Wile E (Dec 24, 2008)

aCid888* said:


> Enough said there really...who gives two shits if AMD is faster then Intel or Intel faster than AMD so long as you can watch your porn and play your games OK????
> 
> 
> The only people who *really* care are the ones who want to show off their E-Penis and post scores of P5658983 in Vantage...that's pretty boring; so as long as I can game OK I don't care if I run Intel or AMD..I buy with my wallet not my penis and if AMD do well again I will be moving back to them as I was once an owner of many AMD CPUs from K6 to A64 and I loved them all!
> ...


Benching is not about bragging or ePeen. It's about personal achievement, competition and fun. We do it because we like it, not to brag or show off.

I compare it directly to drag racing in cars.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Dec 24, 2008)

we back in the time when athlon x2 come time to kick intel


----------



## aCid888* (Dec 24, 2008)

aCid888* said:


> p.s If spending $900~ on a CPU from Intel *OR* AMD plus your Mobo/RAM makes you hard or wet *OR you'd sooner tweak away and bench then play games and have some real fun, by all means good luck to you*.



Fixed for you all.


----------



## miloshs (Dec 24, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Benching is not about bragging or ePeen. It's about personal achievement, competition and fun. We do it because we like it, not to brag or show off.
> 
> I compare it directly to drag racing in cars.



You have to admit......   theres some E-Pe in there somewhere!


----------

