# AMD Raises the Performance Bar With Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition



## btarunr (Aug 13, 2009)

AMD today announced the world's highest clocked quad-core processor for desktop PCs, the AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition processor. As an integral part of Dragon platform technology, this new processor features a stock frequency of 3.4 GHz, massive headroom, high-speed DDR3 memory support and AMD OverDrive 3.0 technology to deliver an enthusiast-class performance that fits into value-based budgets.

Since its initial launch in January 2009, Dragon platform technology has provided great performance at a great price. From the only company with unlocked CPUs and backwards compatibility for DDR2 memory, the AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition processor helps customers pay less for more, period. Available for a Suggested System Builder Price of $245, users opting for Intel may be paying more for less or equal performance.






With this platform, AMD is combining its fastest processor ever with the massive graphics processing muscle of its most powerful GPUs to enable the following features:
Record-setting overclocking capabilities
AMD OverDrive 3.0 tuning software
High-speed DDR3 memory support
Planned future DirectX 11 support for the latest games
AMD Black Edition Memory Profiles for custom experiences
Cool'n'Quiet 3.0 technology to enable improved efficiency and help keep your PC running cool and quiet

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 13, 2009)

Good, maybe this will finally bring down the price of the Q9650...


----------



## btarunr (Aug 13, 2009)

It's trading blows with QX9770 in some reviews, so I'd still pick this over a Q9650 for a first-time buyer.

That again, would be after failing to convince the buyer to wait for Core i7 800 series.


----------



## SNiiPE_DoGG (Aug 13, 2009)

looks good, but since I've already got a 955 I will wait for 975, that is unless this CPU is a magic clocker on water


----------



## Millenia (Aug 13, 2009)

Will buy one as soon as they become available.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 13, 2009)

btarunr said:


> It's trading blows with QX9770 in some reviews, so I'd still pick this over a Q9650 for a first-time buyer.
> 
> That again, would be after failing to convince the buyer to wait for Core i7 800 series.



Doesn't the 955 trade blows with the Q9550?  I find it hard to believe that a 200MHz clock increase would give it that much of a boost...

I'd go with the 965 for a first time buyer, only because 775 is near death, but for someone like me with motherboards already just looking for a processor upgrade....

Even if it is better than the Q9650, my point still stands, this should lower the price since up until now AMD hasn't had a processor that could match it.


----------



## Kitkat (Aug 13, 2009)

already ordered.


----------



## 7mm (Aug 13, 2009)

*That'll be enough for the next 2 years of upgrade, Hopefully!*


----------



## steelkane (Aug 13, 2009)

Nice one,, Too good of a deal to pass up,, What's a good board to get with this.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 13, 2009)

The 720 is still a better buy.


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 13, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The 720 is still a better buy.



The 955 is even better its about £60 cheaper


----------



## AsRock (Aug 13, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The 720 is still a better buy.




I would not say so, my next upgrade will force me change my mobo.  With AMD you might be able just put a newer CPU in.


Kinda wish i went AMD my self to be honest and likely will next time ( 2011 ).


----------



## HossHuge (Aug 13, 2009)

I already have a quad...


----------



## Fitseries3 (Aug 13, 2009)

*Reviews here....*

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=762
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=335&Itemid=63
http://hothardware.com/News/AMD-Phenom-II-965-Black-Edition-CPU-Review/
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1037/1/
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/pii_965/
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenomii_965/


----------



## HossHuge (Aug 13, 2009)

What comes between this and Bulldozer?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 13, 2009)

AsRock said:


> I would not say so, my next upgrade will force me change my mobo.  With AMD you might be able just put a newer CPU in.
> 
> 
> Kinda wish i went AMD my self to be honest and likely will next time ( 2011 ).



The 720 is AMD.


----------



## Valdez (Aug 13, 2009)

http://products.amd.com/en-us/Deskt...&f5=&f6=C2&f7=45nm+SOI&f8=&f9=&f10=False&f11=

140w tdp  when is going a new stepping out?


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Aug 13, 2009)

They Phenoms are scaring me now


----------



## Fx (Aug 13, 2009)

glad I pulled the trigger on the 955 cause I dont see this as anything special. this is good news for users that dont want to tweak whatsoever


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Aug 13, 2009)

btarunr said:


> It's trading blows with QX9770 in some reviews



thats its true but its only trading blows in a few tests - the QX9770 still has the upper hand in  most tests & benchmarks - gaming wise compared to the QX9770 again. the 965 couldnt run toe to toe but it wasnt far behind either.



newtekie1 said:


> *Doesn't the 955 trade blows with the Q9550?*



this is where it gets a little confusing - a lot a reviews have the 965 trading blows with the QX9770 & at the sametime there are lots of other reviews where they put it up against a Q9550.

however the 965 puts up a good fight but its again beaten down by Intels overclockability - most Q9550's reach 4ghz - the highest ive heard a 965 can reach is 3.8Ghz. which is not too shabby at all & since that is the case - choosing the winner is all about how much the CPU costs. It has to be priced under the Q9550 to remain competative otherwise peeople will just get a Q9550 which are getting cheaper & cheaper by the the moment.


----------



## Paintface (Aug 13, 2009)

FreedomEclipse said:


> thats its true but its only trading blows in a few tests - the QX9770 still has the upper hand in  most tests & benchmarks - gaming wise compared to the QX9770 again. the 965 couldnt run toe to toe but it wasnt far behind either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



uh 3.7-3.8ghz is the minimum those unlocked Phenom IIs clock to , with adequat voltage 4ghz usually isnt  aproblem.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Aug 13, 2009)

Paintface said:


> uh 3.7-3.8ghz is the minimum those unlocked Phenom IIs clock to , with adequat voltage 4ghz *usually* isnt  aproblem.



I take it youve already had one for the last few weeks & had time to play around with it??


----------



## erocker (Aug 13, 2009)

Paintface said:


> uh 3.7-3.8ghz is the minimum those unlocked Phenom IIs clock to , with adequat voltage 4ghz usually isnt  aproblem.



All the reviews I've seen on the 965 so far, they don't seem to clock any better than the 955's.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 13, 2009)

Paintface said:


> uh 3.7-3.8ghz is the minimum those unlocked Phenom IIs clock to , with adequat voltage 4ghz usually isnt  aproblem.



Thats not true at all my friend. I can't break 3.45ghz on mine. Its all luck of the draw.


----------



## mdm-adph (Aug 13, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The 720 is still a better buy.



Only because you have one.    I personally think my 5000+ that I got for free beats them all!



FreedomEclipse said:


> thats its true but its only trading blows in a few tests - the QX9770 still has the upper hand in  most tests & benchmarks - gaming wise compared to the QX9770 again. the 965 couldnt run toe to toe but it wasnt far behind either.



Except that the old QX9770 costs (or cost) something like 4-times the 965.  Factor that in and they're equal, as far as I'm concerned.

Though, both are behind the i7 920, of course. :shadedshu


----------



## boomstik360 (Aug 13, 2009)

erocker said:


> All the reviews I've seen on the 965 so far, they don't seem to clock any better than the 955's.



Exactly, there is nothing special about this chip really.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 13, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Only because you have one.    I personally think my 5000+ that I got for free beats them all!


 ARE YOU TELLING ME MY CPU IS A DEMOCRAT?!


----------



## Fx (Aug 13, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> Only because you have one.    I personally think my 5000+ that I got for free beats them all!



have you seen if there is a Cash for Clunkers Program for PCs?


----------



## mdm-adph (Aug 13, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> ARE YOU TELLING ME MY CPU IS A DEMOCRAT?!



As I'm accusing you of relativism, then yes, yes I am.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 13, 2009)

mdm-adph said:


> As I'm accusing you of relativism, then yes, yes I am.



I feel like a dumb ass. I had to look up relativism


----------



## Millenia (Aug 13, 2009)

The 965 costs as much as the 955 here in Finland so I figured I might as well get the "better" one


----------



## mtosev (Aug 13, 2009)

Valdez said:


> http://products.amd.com/en-us/Deskt...&f5=&f6=C2&f7=45nm+SOI&f8=&f9=&f10=False&f11=
> 
> 140w tdp  when is going a new stepping out?



hehe. more then i7's.


----------



## Valdez (Aug 13, 2009)

mtosev said:


> hehe. more then i7's.



Still, a system with a 965 processor eating less than a i7 920 system with the same components (except mainboard ofcourse)


----------



## Frick (Aug 13, 2009)

That difference is negligible.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 13, 2009)

And does the 965 even match the 920's performance?

What do the numbers look like with HT disabled?  I bet the 920 still outperforms the 965 and consumes less power...


----------



## erocker (Aug 13, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> And does the 965 even match the 920's performance?
> 
> What do the numbers look like with HT disabled?  I bet the 920 still outperforms the 965 and consumes less power...



As far as gaming goes, the 965 somewhat beats the 920's performance. With CPU intensive applications (non-gaming) the Core i7 wins. "Win" is a rather lousy word in this case, as the difference really doesn't matter.

Here's a nice article for gaming comparison:  http://www.pureoverclock.com/article794.html


----------



## mtosev (Aug 13, 2009)

I dont think you can OC a lot on the 965. they look clocked to the max. i7's have more headroom then AMD's 9XX cpus.


----------



## AsRock (Aug 13, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> The 720 is AMD.



indeed, i mistaken the 7 for a 9  ^^..  WTF......


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 13, 2009)

erocker said:


> As far as gaming goes, the 965 somewhat beats the 920's performance. With CPU intensive applications (non-gaming) the Core i7 wins. "Win" is a rather lousy word in this case, as the difference really doesn't matter.
> 
> Here's a nice article for gaming comparison:  http://www.pureoverclock.com/article794.html



I've stated this time and time again the 920 can be slower then a PII depending on the application. Unless the application is optimized for more than 4 threads the PII is a better buy. However if the application is in fact multi-threaded the i7 wins hands down.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 13, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I've stated this time and time again the 920 can be slower then a PII depending on the application. Unless the application is optimized for more than 4 threads the PII is a better buy. However if the application is in fact multi-threaded the i7 wins hands down.



I think this statement is a pretty obvious one, even back in the Pentium D/Athlon X2 days.  The Athlon X2 was slower depending on the application.  Of course the PII is better as something thing than the 920.  Some applications will favor certain processors more than others, it has always been this way, and will always be this way.  That is why you have to look at how the processor perform overall, or specifically what you are using the processor for.

I talk in general terms, when I say the 920 is better than the 965, because overall it is.

When it comes down to it, the difference don't really matter at all, which is why I'm still using a X3370 and haven't moved on to an i7.  The upgrade wouldn't make a huge difference, if any at all really.  Hell, it is part of the reason my E6600 is still in a system, for gaming it is all you really need right now.  In gaming I can't really even tell the difference between my x3370 and the E6600, so I doubt I would be able to tell the difference between a 920, a Q9650, a x3370, or an 965...


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 13, 2009)

erocker said:


> As far as gaming goes, the 965 somewhat beats the 920's performance. With CPU intensive applications (non-gaming) the Core i7 wins. "Win" is a rather lousy word in this case, as the difference really doesn't matter.
> 
> Here's a nice article for gaming comparison:  http://www.pureoverclock.com/article794.html



yah thats true... the thing that kills the i7 920 in games is the low clock rate...  But all things (overclocking) considered a i7 920 is much faster and will shine with more powerful next gen gfx cards/ multicard setups.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 13, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> I think this statement is a pretty obvious one, even back in the Pentium D/Athlon X2 days.  The Athlon X2 was slower depending on the application.  Of course the PII is better as something thing than the 920.  Some applications will favor certain processors more than others, it has always been this way, and will always be this way.  That is why you have to look at how the processor perform overall, or specifically what you are using the processor for.
> 
> I talk in general terms, when I say the 920 is better than the 965, because overall it is.
> 
> When it comes down to it, the difference don't really matter at all, which is why I'm still using a X3370 and haven't moved on to an i7.  The upgrade wouldn't make a huge difference, if any at all really.  Hell, it is part of the reason my E6600 is still in a system, for gaming it is all you really need right now.  In gaming I can't really even tell the difference between my x3370 and the E6600, so I doubt I would be able to tell the difference between a 920, a Q9650, a x3370, or an 965...


This is true. I was gaming just fine with an x2 4200+ until a few months ago. Its easy to be caught up in the hype of anything your interested in


----------



## 1nvisible (Aug 13, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Good, maybe this will finally bring down the price of the Q9650...


Bought a Q9650 on ebay for $260 not even a week now, loving it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 13, 2009)

TheMailMan78 said:


> This is true. I was gaming just fine with an x2 4200+ until a few months ago. Its easy to be caught up in the hype of anything your interested in



I'm still gaming just fine on my X2 4200+  Granted, it really does hold back my HD4890, and it doesn't overclock worth a damn...

My next upgrade will definitely be to a Phenom II, possibly the 910 or 920, if I can hold out that long...it is far to tempting to take the money I have now and just buy an X2 250



1nvisible said:


> Bought a Q9650 on ebay for $260 not even a week now, loving it.



My X3370 is basically the same processor, I too love it.  I wish I could have gotten the X3380, as it is the fastest 775 quad-core(except for the extreme editions)...but I couldn't afford it, and I didn't think it was worth the $200 price increase over the X3370.


----------



## Polarman (Aug 13, 2009)

This is AMD's first stock 3.4ghz CPU.

Good if your building a new AM3 rig.


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 13, 2009)

Polarman said:


> This is AMD's first stock 3.4ghz CPU.
> 
> Good if your building a new AM3 rig.



yeah but why not save the $$ and get a 955? all you have to do is bump the multi...


----------



## steelkane (Aug 13, 2009)

AMD or Intel, a Quad core 3Ghz or higher is more then good for any game or app I have.


----------



## aj28 (Aug 13, 2009)

phanbuey said:


> yeah but why not save the $$ and get a 955? all you have to do is bump the multi...



The same could be said for most processors of the same series. The difference is binning and guaranteed performance. Not to mention now that the 965 is out, all the 955 SKU going to market are a lower bin. This is pretty much always the case when a company introduces a new chip...


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 13, 2009)

aj28 said:


> The same could be said for most processors of the same series. The difference is binning and guaranteed performance. Not to mention now that the 965 is out, all the 955 SKU going to market are a lower bin. This is pretty much always the case when a company introduces a new chip...



that would be true, if the binning made a difference... But these have the same OC ceiling as the 955's and 940's at virtually the same voltage, which is probably a sign that the differences between the bins is minimal, if any.  But yeah, ppl will pay more to have a piece of mind... 

It just seems exactly like a 955 with a different multi setting set as the default.  I know its not, but thats what it seems like as both CPU's are BE's...


----------



## SNiiPE_DoGG (Aug 14, 2009)

Valdez said:


> Still, a system with a 965 processor eating less than a i7 920 system with the same components (except mainboard ofcourse)
> 
> http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/phenom-ii-x4-965/charts/power-2.png



except what that chart doesnt tell you is that (IIRC) the i7 920 and q9550 draw more power than the 955 and 965 at 3.2ghz and 3.4ghz respectively.


----------



## btarunr (Aug 14, 2009)

The i7 920 system is holding an extra DDR3 module, amirite?


----------



## SNiiPE_DoGG (Aug 14, 2009)

yeah it does, but its running a full 740mhz slower


----------



## btarunr (Aug 14, 2009)

SNiiPE_DoGG said:


> yeah it does, but its running a full 740mhz slower



The clock speed? That's not relevant. It's a 130W TDP CPU, and has a higher transistor count compared to AMD Deneb. More transistors to feed = high TDP rating a lower clock speeds. For AMD high-clock speeds and lower transistor count still amounts for 140W rated TDP.


----------



## HossHuge (Aug 14, 2009)

HossHuge said:


> What comes between this and Bulldozer?



So this is AMD's fastest CPU for the next year and a half?


----------



## SNiiPE_DoGG (Aug 14, 2009)

HossHuge said:


> So this is AMD's fastest CPU for the next year and a half?



975BE christmas time, 3.6ghz


----------



## Kitkat (Aug 14, 2009)

SNiiPE_DoGG said:


> 975BE christmas time, 3.6ghz



yeah its every 3 month or so.



btarunr said:


> The clock speed? That's not relevant. It's a 130W TDP CPU, and has a higher transistor count compared to AMD Deneb. More transistors to feed = high TDP rating a lower clock speeds. For AMD high-clock speeds and lower transistor count still amounts for 140W rated TDP.



ahhhhhhhh so what your saying is amd needs a new chip to compete with i7, thats good advice  never going to matter anyway they arent even in the same segment


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 14, 2009)

Kitkat said:


> yeah its every 3 month or so.
> 
> 
> 
> ahhhhhhhh so what your saying is amd needs a new chip to compete with i7, thats good advice  never going to matter anyway they arent even in the same segment



not yet theyre not... but when i5 comes they will be in the same segment as the Phenoms...


----------



## araditus (Aug 14, 2009)

erocker said:


> As far as gaming goes, the 965 somewhat beats the 920's performance.
> 
> Here's a nice article for gaming comparison:  http://www.pureoverclock.com/article794.html



I took this from this page :  http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=794&page=12

"What you see above is how much it would cost you per framerate (increase) with a Core i7 system over a Phenom II system. The higher the number above, the worse it is because the more you will be paying for performance increase. What is being shown, for example in Left 4 Dead, is that it will cost you $26.88 extra per frame to buy a Core i7 system for gaming. 


So if you get 5 fps higher in Left 4 Dead, that just cost you almost $135. Would you pay $135 for 5 fps? Can you see the difference between 114 and 119 fps? And where the two systems are even more closely matched, the case becomes worse for the Intel setup. Since the results for Crysis: Warhead are tied in single GPU configuration, this means you are paying $215 for absolutely no gaming performance increase whatsoever. That is probably very sobering for the Intel fanboys in the house right about now.

Now consider this: for a current difference of $215, you can purchase a second Radeon 4890 to go with a Crossfire setup in a Phenom II system. From a gaming perspective, the Core i7 system simply cannot compete with this."

Not saying im the expert, just a knowledgeable consumer, I have been reading reviews now for 8 years, (yea im a young'n) this is the first time I have seen a "dollar per frame" in the way they did it, I have seen price/performance, but not layed out like this, the last paragraph really hits home for me, becuase my gaming appetite can be sustained for less money, then sweeeeeeeet! And my girlfriend doesnt care if I have 4 more fps than the other guy  but we all have our priorities and desires on how to spend our money  

As far as number crunching is concerned I am aware that a 920 will beat out AMD's offerings, however, when I set to compress a blu-ray movies or what have you, the longer it takes, the more time I get to make a snack or look out the window at the pretty blue birds, if my pc did it too fast I would never get time to leave the room


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 14, 2009)

haha ^^ nice post


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 14, 2009)

SNiiPE_DoGG said:


> except what that chart doesnt tell you is that (IIRC) the i7 920 and q9550 draw more power than the 955 and 965 at 3.2ghz and 3.4ghz respectively.



Yes, and the Q9550 and I7 920 drastically outperform the 955 and 965 respectively at 3.2GHz and 3.4GHz respectively.

When the processors perform the same clock for clock, then you can make that argument.  However, until then, performance per watt is what matters not clock cycle per watt.


----------



## troyrae360 (Aug 14, 2009)

Awsum I want one!! Good work AMD!!


----------



## SNiiPE_DoGG (Aug 14, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, and the Q9550 and I7 920 drastically outperform the 955 and 965 respectively at 3.2GHz and 3.4GHz respectively.
> 
> When the processors perform the same clock for clock, then you can make that argument.  However, until then, performance per watt is what matters not clock cycle per watt.



depends on whether you are gaming or crunching though.


----------



## troyrae360 (Aug 14, 2009)

I think the thing to also remember is that AMD users havent had to update there Mobos for the last 3 years!! I got mine 2 years ago for my athlon 6400+ and and still put the latest Phenom into it  Instantly saving $200-$400 NZ dollers


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Aug 14, 2009)

sweet deal, looks like this may be the chip that replaces my 940.. perhaps it'll hit higher then 3.9 under water... so i hope...


----------



## hat (Aug 14, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, and the Q9550 and I7 920 drastically outperform the 955 and 965 respectively at 3.2GHz and 3.4GHz respectively.
> 
> When the processors perform the same clock for clock, then you can make that argument.  However, until then, performance per watt is what matters not clock cycle per watt.



This is the truth... behind all truths.


----------



## savor_of_filth (Aug 14, 2009)

AMD = Best bang for the buck!

yes i7 outperform all Phenom ii,but i7 pricing is killing me.


----------



## troyrae360 (Aug 14, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, and the Q9550 and I7 920 drastically outperform the 955 and 965 respectively at 3.2GHz and 3.4GHz respectively.
> 
> When the processors perform the same clock for clock, then you can make that argument.  However, until then, performance per watt is what matters not clock cycle per watt.



Actually, after 5 min of looking at benchmarks it would seem that the 965 is a better processor for gaming than i7 920, 

so if the 920 is drastically outpreforming the 965 why dose the 965 score better fps in most games?


----------



## Wile E (Aug 14, 2009)

araditus said:


> I took this from this page :  http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=794&page=12
> 
> "What you see above is how much it would cost you per framerate (increase) with a Core i7 system over a Phenom II system. The higher the number above, the worse it is because the more you will be paying for performance increase. What is being shown, for example in Left 4 Dead, is that it will cost you $26.88 extra per frame to buy a Core i7 system for gaming.
> 
> ...


If all your are concerned with is gaming, of course the video card is more important.

I really don't see the point of using gaming tests to compare cpus. Just doesn't make much sense to me.

Personally, I'm waiting to upgrade for 6 cores or more. I want a multithreading monster.

These clock speed bumps from AMD are getting old. It's like watching Intel in the P4 days. Quit just upping clocks already, and innovate somehow. Give us an 8 core cpu or something like that.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Aug 14, 2009)

btarunr said:


> The clock speed? That's not relevant. It's a 130W TDP CPU, and has a higher transistor count compared to AMD Deneb. More transistors to feed = high TDP rating a lower clock speeds. For AMD high-clock speeds and lower transistor count still amounts for 140W rated TDP.



No. i7 has a lower transistor count than Deneb.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 14, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> I think the thing to also remember is that AMD users havent had to update there Mobos for the last 3 years!! I got mine 2 years ago for my athlon 6400+ and and still put the latest Phenom into it  Instantly saving $200-$400 NZ dollers



Not always true. My AM2 board can't take any phenoms at all.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 14, 2009)

Wile E said:


> If all your are concerned with is gaming, of course the video card is more important.
> 
> I really don't see the point of using gaming tests to compare cpus. Just doesn't make much sense to me.
> 
> ...



this is probably stop gap procedures for the time being, they probably do have something in the works for the next 5-6 years.


----------



## phanbuey (Aug 14, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> Actually, after 5 min of looking at benchmarks it would seem that the 965 is a better processor for gaming than i7 920,
> 
> so if the 920 is drastically outpreforming the 965 why dose the 965 score better fps in most games?



higher clockrate IMO, most games are not threaded to take advantage of a low clocked quad with 8 cores...  

In sheer processor power, the i7 920 beats out my Q9650 at 3.9Ghz in many benchmarks.

I wish they would release a chip that can break 4Ghz easily.  If AMD is gonna play the clockspeed game they better release a chip that can clock higher than an i5 or they're screwed.


----------



## Valdez (Aug 14, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Not always true. My AM2 board can't take any phenoms at all.



It can, but your mobo manufacturer doesn't give a shit about your mobo, and didn't release new bios with phenom support.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Aug 14, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, and the Q9550 and I7 920 drastically outperform the 955 and 965 respectively at 3.2GHz and 3.4GHz respectively.
> 
> When the processors perform the same clock for clock, then you can make that argument.  However, until then, performance per watt is what matters not clock cycle per watt.



It still matters in the end as i7's OC to very high numbers. So you will need a beefier PSU to be running that i7 at 4.2ghz.



Wile E said:


> These clock speed bumps from AMD are getting old. It's like watching Intel in the P4 days. Quit just upping clocks already, and innovate somehow. Give us an 8 core cpu or something like that.



PII's just came out less than 8 months ago. They are good chips, what they are missing is HT, and I don't know if they will ever have it as I think it's now copyrighted, so can't really ask for much more.


----------



## $ReaPeR$ (Aug 14, 2009)

personally i think that each one should buy the best CPU for the tasks he performs more often.


----------



## HossHuge (Aug 14, 2009)

Valdez said:


> It can, but your mobo manufacturer doesn't give a shit about your mobo, and didn't release new bios with phenom support.



Not true,  lots of am2 & am2+ motherboards don't support both 125 & 140 watt cpu's because they can't handle the power.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 14, 2009)

SNiiPE_DoGG said:


> depends on whether you are gaming or crunching though.



No it doesn't, performance per watt is all that matters regardless of what you are doing.  Clock Cycles per watt means nothing unless the processor perform the same clock for clock.



troyrae360 said:


> Actually, after 5 min of looking at benchmarks it would seem that the 965 is a better processor for gaming than i7 920,
> 
> so if the 920 is drastically outpreforming the 965 why dose the 965 score better fps in most games?



I'm guess you don't know what the word "respectively" means.  I'll rephrase it to make it more clear:

When both the 920 and 965 are clocked at the same speed of 3.4GHz, the 920 drastically outperforms the 965.



1Kurgan1 said:


> It still matters in the end as i7's OC to very high numbers. So you will need a beefier PSU to be running that i7 at 4.2ghz.
> 
> PII's just came out less than 8 months ago. They are good chips, what they are missing is HT, and I don't know if they will ever have it as I think it's now copyrighted, so can't really ask for much more.



What does that have to do with anything?  How much power the processor uses at its max overclock doesn't matter here, that isn't what the discussion is about.

And while the Phenom IIs are definitely a good thing, I wouldn't call them great.  Great would be able to match Intel.  They've managed to match Intels previous generation, but not the current.  The i7 is just a step higher, which is why the prices are still pretty outragous.  There is a lot more to ask for:  A chip that can compete with Intel's high-end would be nice for one... Something that doesn't take 3.4GHz to match the competitions 2.6GHz would also be nice.  The Phenom II will probably never be able to compete with the high end i7's, 3.4GHz is pushing the limits of the architecture, we might see one at 3.6GHz released but that will definitely be pushing the limits.  Something has to be done to allow AMD to continue to compete against Intel's high end, and Phenom II ain't it.  Right now, I see AMD as being in the same position Intel was with the netburst processors.  It is taking very high clock speeds to match the competition's relatively low clock speeds.



troyrae360 said:


> I think the thing to also remember is that AMD users havent had to update there Mobos for the last 3 years!! I got mine 2 years ago for my athlon 6400+ and and still put the latest Phenom into it  Instantly saving $200-$400 NZ dollers



Not accurate for several reasons:

1.) There are a lot, and I mean a lot, of early AM2 boards where the manufacturer simply didn't release the updates required to support Phenoms, so those users are force to change motherboards.
2.) The P965 chipset was released at amost the same time as the first AM2 boards, maybe even slightly earlier, and people with those boards have enjoys support for all the 775 processors ever released, all the way up to the 45nm quads.  The i7 marks the first need to upgrade a 775 in more than 3 years.  So the same argument can be made for Intel's side also.  And really, with the Phenom II's only matching the 45nm 775 quads in performance, I think it is fair to compare the two.  Anyone that wants more is going to have to go with i7 either way, and a new motherboard.


----------



## Valdez (Aug 14, 2009)

HossHuge said:


> Not true,  lots of am2 & am2+ motherboards don't support both 125 & 140 watt cpu's because they can't handle the power.



There are a lots of low power phenoms out there. 95w, 65w, 45w. Not every phenoms (and new athlons) have 125 and 140w tdp's.

Anyway lot of am2 boards can handle processors up to 125w because there were athlon x2's with 125w tdp.


----------



## HossHuge (Aug 14, 2009)

Valdez said:


> There are a lots of low power phenoms out there. 95w, 65w, 45w. Not every phenoms (and new athlons) have 125 and 140w tdp's.
> 
> Anyway lot of am2 boards can handle processors up to 125w because there were athlon x2's with 125w tdp.



Sorry, from your earlier post I was led to believe you meant all the phenoms not just the lower power ones.


----------



## Valdez (Aug 14, 2009)

HossHuge said:


> Sorry, from your earlier post I was led to believe you meant all the phenoms not just the lower power ones.



no problem


----------



## trt740 (Aug 14, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Not always true. My AM2 board can't take any phenoms at all.



Your statement in your case maybe true but it is far from the norm.  Most budget AMD systems from the last three years can use current chips.. That cannot be said for intel, example, my friends computer  I built is coming up on it's 3 years anniversary  and it can take 83+ AMD CPU's, all the way to the current Phenoms . 


Also clock speed comparisons is none sense what does it matter what speed it is compared to another chip. If the chips are made differently they are going to be clocked differently. If intel wants to show that it can blow AMD away they need to up their CPU speeds and increase their yields. Because other than the 10 percent of us overclockers the general population will look at stock performance(bang for the buck) and right now purely on stock performance AMD is a better option as a upgrade and a cheaper option for a new build, and at stock it is very similar in performance to all the intel chips. If you are a performance enthusiast Intel is your route, but it is by no means blowing AMD away or truly outperforming it. The best deal out are the AMD 940's with cheap motherboards, good on board video and cheap DDR2.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 14, 2009)

trt740 said:


> Your statement in your case maybe true but it is far from the norm.  Most budget AMD systems from the last three years can use current chips.. That cannot be said for intel, example, my friends computer  I built is coming up on it's 3 years anniversary  and it can take 83+ AMD CPU's, all the way to the current Phenoms .



I find this very inaccurate, as the budget AMD systems are generally the one that lack BIOS updates to support the new processors.  Companies don't want to put money into developing a new BIOS for cheap boards that they make little money on.  And the pre-built machines the general population are buying are even less likely to have BIOS updates.

And as I've already stated, the same argument can be made for the Intel side, if the user put some thought into the purchase in the first place.  My budget P5B, which I believe I paid $100 new a week or two after it was released in 2006, works with every desktop 775 processor in existance, from the 90nm Celeron Ds all the way up to the 45nm Core 2 Quads.




trt740 said:


> Also clock speed comparisons is none sense what does it matter what speed it is compared to another chip. If the chips are made differently they are going to be clocked differently. If intel wants to show that it can blow AMD away they need to up their CPU speeds and increase their yields. Because other than the 10 percent of us overclockers the general population will look at stock performance and right now purely on stock performance AMD is a better option as a upgrade and a cheaper option for a new build, and at stock it is very similar in performance to all the intel chips. If you are a performance enthusiast Intel is your route, but it is by no means blowing AMD away or truly outperforming it.



The i7s definitely are better stock for stock, no doubt about that.  Does it matter to the average consumer?  No.  The average consumer is still buying 775 hardware because it is cheaper, and the 775 hardware still competes pretty well stock for stock with AMDs offerings.

The average consumer also never upgrades their processor either, so the argument about the longevity of AM2 is pretty moot if you want to talk about the general popularion.


----------



## trt740 (Aug 14, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> I find this very inaccurate, as the budget AMD systems are generally the one that lack BIOS updates to support the new processors.  Companies don't want to put money into developing a new BIOS for cheap boards that they make little money on.  And the pre-built machines the general population are buying are even less likely to have BIOS updates.
> 
> And as I've already stated, the same argument can be made for the Intel side, if the user put some thought into the purchase in the first place.  My budget P5B, which I believe I paid $100 new a week or two after it was released in 2006, works with every desktop 775 processor in existance, from the 90nm Celeron Ds all the way up to the 45nm Core 2 Quads.
> 
> ...



Sorry I don't agree, when all the components are factored I  can build a AMD system for alot less and it will perform just about the same as any Intel system out. Also if your saying Asus, Gigabyte and Foxcon don't update their bios on older motherboards that's just flat out not true and those three companies make up about 70 percent of all motherboard sales world wide. Also in the real world the performance  difference is not at all big, stock clock for stock clock. I have owned both systems with top end components and if you didn't tell me which one was in my computer, example a 945 DDR3 /940 DDR2 or a 920 DDr3 / QX9650 DDr2  I could not tell you what was powering my system. Now overclocked I would see some difference but even that's not giant in the real world. In a benchmark you would but not in the real world. In this case your GPU is more important. Why intel doesn't keep a socket compatible with a new cpu drives me crazy and why they don't sell cpus at or near their max potential for a reasonable price also drives me nutts. Can intel blow AMDs door off the answer is yes? Why they continue to FXXK people with their prices and let AMD hang in there I cannot tell you. The only thing I can come up with is if intel releases a I7 at 3.8ghz(stock clock) and prices it at 200.00 AMD might not exist causing a monopoly and the EU might ban them. However, as situation currently stands AMD is cheaper and the better bang for the buck.  

 I've used theses systems and maybe it just me but my last 4 upgrades (CPU/Ram/ Motherboard  were a waste of money) My 295 gtx on the other hand is a beast and the only better option money wise was the 300.00 (new) 4870x2 mwave was selling.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 14, 2009)

trt740 said:


> Sorry I don't agree, when all the components are factored I  can build a AMD system for alot less and it will perform just about the same as any Intel system out.



Ok, build your system and lets compare.  Not that it matters, you want to make arguments about the general population, but the general popular doesn't build their own machines...



trt740 said:


> Also if your saying Asus, Gigabyte and Foxcon don't update their bios on older motherboards that's just flat out not true and those three companies make up about 70 percent of all motherboard sales world wide.



Yes, mostly because of OEM systems, and it is up to the OEMs to make the BIOS updates, not ASUS, Gigabyte, or Foxcon.



trt740 said:


> Also in the real world the performance difference is not at all big, stock clock for stock clock. I have owned both systems with top end components and if you didn't tell me which one was in my computer, example a 945 DDR3 /940 DDR2 or a 920 DDr3 / QX9650 DDr2  I could not tell you what was powering my system. Now overclocked I would see some difference but even that's not giant in the real world. In a benchmark you would but not in the real world. In this case your GPU is more important.



This I agree with, and have said numerous times.  It is exactly the reason I am not upgrading my 775 platform to i7, the price simply doesn't justify the next to 0 performance increase I would see.  I'm instead focusing on getting my AMD rig up to snuff, mainly in the processor department, as I know I will see a very nice performance boost going from the 4200+ to a Phenom II Quad-core.



trt740 said:


> Why intel doesn't keep a socket compatible with a new cpu drives me crazy



Given all the new things introduced in the i7/i5 processors I can understand the need for a new socket.  It was the transition from DDR to DDR2 requiring a new socket that baffled me...by hey at least they got it right when they moved to DDR3.  The fact is though, sockets don't last for ever, 3 years is a good run IMO.  Intel needed to move to a new socket to grow.  What is driving me crazy is the move to two sockets...that is stupid!



trt740 said:


> and why they don't sell cpus at or near their max potential for a reasonable price also drives me nutts.



The reason for this is obvious, they don't have to.  Without competition prices get insane.  The processors they have to keep cheap, they do, the ones that have no competition they charge out the ass for.  AMD did the same thing when Intel couldn't compete.  The Athlon FX line was outragously priced because the Pentium 4/Ds simply couldn't compete.  Asking anyone that paid $1000+ for an FX-60, they will tell you AMD will jack the prices up just as quick as Intel when they can.



trt740 said:


> Can intel blow AMDs door off the answer is yes? Why they continue to FXXK people with their prices and let AMD hang in there I cannot tell you. The only thing I can come up with is if intel release a I7 at 3.8ghz(stock clock) and priced it at 200.00 AMD might not exist causing a monopoly and the EU might ban them. however as thing currently stand AMD is cheaper.



The reason is that high end CPU sales account for maybe 10% of their total sales, the other 90% going to the mid and low end.  AMD is able to compete in these sectors, so Intel has to keep the prices low in those sectors.  They could release a 3.8GHz i7 and completely destroy AMD, of course AMD would just drop the price on the 965 to $10 and steal all the sales from Intel.  However, doing so would cause both to not make a profit, and they would have to do it for such a large amount of time.  Not making a profit gets investors pissed off, not making a profit for long enough time makes investors leave...


----------



## WarEagleAU (Aug 15, 2009)

Doesnt intel have a quad core with a base clock faster than this? Looks like my waiting is paying off, Id love to see a TPU review of this chip if at all possible.


----------



## troyrae360 (Aug 15, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> The i7s definitely are better stock for stock, no doubt about that.  Does it matter to the average consumer?  No.  The average consumer is still buying 775 hardware because it is cheaper, and the 775 hardware still competes pretty well stock for stock with AMDs offerings.
> 
> .



Not better at Gaming, You should check the current benchmarks, Most games a pulling higher FPS with the 965.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 15, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> Doesnt intel have a quad core with a base clock faster than this? Looks like my waiting is paying off, Id love to see a TPU review of this chip if at all possible.



I don't believe so, the i7 975 is 3.33GHz.  I think the highest clocked Core 2 Quad(or rather socket 775 Xeon) was 3.16GHz



troyrae360 said:


> Not Better at Gaming, obivousley you havent seen the benchmarks out there, most game are pulling higher FPS with 965.



Really, show me.  I want to see the benchmarks showing the 965 beating an i7 975 stock for stock, how about even a i7 965, can it even beat a i7 940?


----------



## trt740 (Aug 15, 2009)

Newtekie1 you do realize all the I7 costs the same amount to produce and the real company jacking the price is intel and by upping the core speed and dropping the prices on AMD they would put AMD out of business. They would still make money with shear volume and even at 200.00 (not much less than a I7 920) a I7 at 3.8 ghz would be untouchable by AMD. The cost to develop that chips is nothing just change the multiplier. You would be very hard presses to find a I7 D0 that is incapable of running at 3.8ghz and with all the voltage and temperature controls enabled the chip would run great. Intel would love to run AMD out so it would be like the early 90's. Don't think they wouldn't if they thought they could get away with it. I for one don't ever want AMD gone, but if you think intel doesn't your crazy.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 15, 2009)

trt740 said:


> Newtekie1 you do realize all the I7 costs the same amount to produce and the real company jacking the price is intel and by upping the core speed and dropping the prices on AMD they would put AMD out of business. They would still make money with shear volume and even at 200.00 (not much less than a I7 920) a I7 at 3.8 ghz would be untouchable by AMD. The cost to develop that chips is nothing just change the multiplier. You would be very hard presses to find a I7 D0 that is incapable of running at 3.8ghz and with all the voltage and temperature controls enabled the chip would run great. Intel would love to run AMD out so it would be like the early 90's. Don't think they wouldn't if they thought they could get away with it. I for one don't ever want AMD gone, but if you think intel doesn't your crazy.



Of course they all cost the same, however Intel relies on the high profit margin models to recoup the huge costs of engineering the chip in the first place.

And a 3.8GHz i7 isn't likely with the stock cooler, something else Intel has to engineer, or licence from another company...more cuts to profit margin...

If you think AMD doesn't want Intel gone just as much as Intel wants AMD gone, you're the crazy one.


----------



## trt740 (Aug 15, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Of course they all cost the same, however Intel relies on the high profit margin models to recoup the huge costs of engineering the chip in the first place.
> 
> And a 3.8GHz i7 isn't likely with the stock cooler, something else Intel has to engineer, or licence from another company...more cuts to profit margin...
> 
> If you think AMD doesn't want Intel gone just as much as Intel wants AMD gone, you're the crazy one.




I would like to fart gold  but that's about as likely as AMD putting Intel out of business  

However, Intel almost put AMD down last year, at least in the cpu market.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 15, 2009)

trt740 said:


> I would like to fart gold  but that's about as likely as AMD putting Intel out of business
> 
> However, Intel almost put AMD down last year, at least in the cpu market.



I didn't say it was likely, I just said AMD wants it just as much...


----------



## trt740 (Aug 16, 2009)

All I have to say is great job AMD keep it up!!!!!!!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 16, 2009)

trt740 said:


> However, Intel almost put AMD down last year, at least in the cpu market.


Core 2 + ATI buyout almost did AMD in during late 2006 and early 2007.  They managed to pull through but they are still really hurting:
http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp...3263&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSE:AMD&ntsp=0

AMD is currently traded as a "penny stock."


----------



## trt740 (Aug 16, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Core 2 + ATI buyout almost did AMD in during late 2006 and early 2007.  They managed to pull through but they are still really hurting:
> http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp...3263&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSE:AMD&ntsp=0
> 
> AMD is currently traded as a "penny stock."



Your correct but the 3870 and the Phenom X4 also played a big part in AMDs trouble. The 4870 and Phenom II x4 saved their butts


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Aug 16, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Core 2 + ATI buyout almost did AMD in during late 2006 and early 2007.  They managed to pull through but they are still really hurting:
> http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp...3263&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSE:AMD&ntsp=0
> 
> AMD is currently traded as a "penny stock."



No the fact they have nothing in the market for low end laptops is what has been hurting them.


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 17, 2009)

Lol low end laptops is hardly anything to shake a stick at. 


Heres something for you guys to chew at. 

Phenom II is busting through all records with Dragon setups. I dont see Intel doing this.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 17, 2009)

trt740 said:


> Your correct but the 3870 and the Phenom X4 also played a big part in AMDs trouble. The 4870 and Phenom II x4 saved their butts


They aren't saved yet.  FYI, graphics cards bring in far less money than processors.  Graphic cards can't make or break AMD but their processors (multiple delays on Phenom and lackluster performance when it launched) and corporate decisions (buying out ATI when funds are already almost gone) can.




TheMailMan78 said:


> No the fact they have nothing in the market for low end laptops is what has been hurting them.


Yeah, not having much in the laptop segment is hurting as well.  At the same time, I think they don't have the money to really develop two separate lines of processors to cater to each segment though.  They really have to focus on one segment and try to beat Intel at their own game.  Only then can they really ponder breaking into another segment but doing so risks losing their edge on the fronts they control.




PP Mguire said:


> Phenom II is busting through all records with Dragon setups. I dont see Intel doing this.


Larrabee...


----------



## troyrae360 (Aug 17, 2009)

PP Mguire said:


> Lol low end laptops is hardly anything to shake a stick at.
> 
> 
> Heres something for you guys to chew at.
> ...



Sounds interesting, can you elaborate?


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 17, 2009)

Dosent mean squat right now lol. It isnt out.

I personally watched AMD top the 06 world record in front of me and the chip sat at 6.8 with K|ngp|n behind the wheel. Overclocking is where im at and who sits behind the record. 

AMDs plan is to target gamers who want good performance for a cheap price. Even though i sit behind Nvidia cards i dont think ATI/AMD are doing a bad job. This information btw, coming from the horses mouth.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 17, 2009)

4 out of 5 of the top 20 3D Mark '06 scores are on Nehalem:
http://service.futuremark.com/searc...us=-100&graphicsdriver=3&operatingsystem=-100

I don't know how you figure Dragon is "busting through all records" when it can't manage to unseat the Core i7.


Have to go all the way to the 5th/6th page to find a Phenom on 3DMark Vantage:
http://service.futuremark.com/searc...=1&scoretype=1&scoreFrom=&scoreTo=&validity=0


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 17, 2009)

Because they havent uploaded their scores yet. 

Mild oc on video and 6.8 on the 965 and their first run was 38,6 with minor tweaking. They went even further than that but the booth had to close down due to Qcon rules. Im uploading pics as im typing this.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 17, 2009)

how long do u think its going to sit there?


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 17, 2009)

Well in Finland they got the cpu to 7+ so id say for a while. i7 has a terrible cold bug meaning they cant go to -230c like Phenom II can.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 17, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUpOk13d7vg

-nuff said-


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 17, 2009)

Mmm troll.

http://game.amd.com/us-en/landings/Zeitgeist.aspx?p=1

Nuff said. Until my Qcon stuff gets uploaded which is looking like it will take quite a while

:shadedshu slow internet.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 17, 2009)

PP Mguire said:


> Well in Finland they got the cpu to 7+ so id say for a while. i7 has a terrible cold bug meaning they cant go to -230c like Phenom II can.


Can you say "Gulftown?" 

32nm, hexa-core, early 2010.  Larrabee could arrive about the same time.  That's not to say a D0 chip won't beat that benchmark before then.


Why I brought up Larrabee is because that will be the first discreet Intel video card.  Gulfstown + X58 or X68 + Larabee = equivilent to Dragon platform.


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 17, 2009)

Except, this is here and now. That is later and possible. You cant compare whats now and whats later as a real argument. Thats like saying i could overclock my pentium 1 to 10ghz with absolute zero cooling in a vacum in 2020.....


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 17, 2009)

You had a figure to aim for, Nehalem owner's didn't.  Now that there is competition, it is only a matter of time before someone steps up to the plate.


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 17, 2009)

Except i7 CPUs cant go that cold to reach sustainable benching and cooling for that long a period of time. So to reach they would have to fix their little problem. This is probably why Intel had such a small booth at Qcon and AMDs was huge and they where doing public demonstrations of overclocking.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 17, 2009)

AMD is desperate, Intel isn't.  Intel doesn't need to flap their arms about to sell processors, AMD does.

Never say never.  If someone wants to take the time to find Core i7's sweet spot, they will.  Now that there is a target to aim for, they have an incentive to push them beyond 5 GHz.


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 17, 2009)

AMD isnt desperate though. They are flying through processors like hot cakes whether or not Intel people want to believe this or not. Thats not the point though. I dont care about the politics i care about the hardware. Core i7 reaches its freezing point with nitrogen, AMD can go to ~ 6/7K and beyond. They can keep pushing but as long as AMD has the newer cooling techniques that can be used the extreme OCers that have AMD will prevail. 

Of course most will find this argument moot but for the extreme OCers that really want to argue semantics over a processor taking it to the extreme to really see what its made of is where its at. Which is why im here right now.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 17, 2009)

AMD's market capitalization is between $2 and $3 billion and their shares are selling for between $3-4 each.  That is damn near bankruptcy territory.


Need I remind you that Nehalem shares kinship with NetBurst and NetBurst holds all the world's highest clockspeed records:
http://valid.canardpc.com/records.php?PHPSESSID=3d9cee294162f8d9faf6bc16af1b7fa2

Now that there is an incentive to push them, they will be pushed.  They just have to remember to disable HyperThreading.


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 17, 2009)

Yea, and that top record is a single core processor and AMDs quads have peaked over 7 already. Thats a hell of alot more to cool and quite a feat to accomplish. The 965 records havent been recorded i guess since it was just the other day. Im wondering exactly how far they can really push it


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 17, 2009)

This is a pointless argument


----------



## Assassin48 (Aug 17, 2009)

I would stop before infractions are given 

Just be happy for AMD for a 3.4ghz x4 

Intel will bring something new and it will go back and forth


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 17, 2009)

IDK this is AMDs first CPU to be at 3.4GHz Stock, 3.2 was hit with the X2 6400.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 17, 2009)

Just to show you the price difference here in AUS from AMD's top CPU and Intel's CPU

http://www.gamedude.com.au/prod_show.php?art_no=cpAMphenom2_965

http://www.xpmicro.com.au/cgi-bin/xpmicro/BX80601975.html?id=E9W6A27C

Seriously what one would you get if you lived here in AUS?

And for those who said there Mobo cant take the new Phenom's, then why didn't you spend the extra $20 to get the Mobo that can? You can get a good mobo here to take all the CPU's (even yrs ago) for a little over $100 thats like $80 US


----------



## mixa (Aug 17, 2009)

With all the antitrust shits that Intel has come out, its wonder that AMD didn't "die" yet, its heroic from their part that they are managing to make such a nice CPUs as they are doing it since first A64 'till PII.Only an idiotic Intel fan could deny it.Period.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Aug 17, 2009)

anyone try overclock it on air , how much max overclock expect on air with this cpu


----------



## ShadowFold (Aug 17, 2009)

hayder.master said:


> anyone try overclock it on air , how much max overclock expect on air with this cpu



I've seen a few at 4ghz+ on air.. forgot where that was. I'd get one, but I just bought a GTS 250 and I'm in quite a bit of a financial mess right now..


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 17, 2009)

Assassin48 said:


> I would stop before infractions are given
> 
> Just be happy for AMD for a 3.4ghz x4
> 
> Intel will bring something new and it will go back and forth



It would be stupid for infractions to be given considering it wasnt a heated argument/debate. Probably why no mods said anything in the first place. 

And it isnt pointless either. Who ever goes the fastest wins, nuff said. They intent to break the record of highest overclock and shatter all synthetic records as well. You cant possibly tell me this chip isnt full of win.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 17, 2009)

I swear I've seen that guy on the left before.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 17, 2009)

While holding world records is nice, it doesn't really help AMD any.  It does increase their "street cred" a little among overclockers, but doesn't really help them in the long run.  The general public doesn't even read about overclocking, and the ones that do don't care to do it.  The general public doesn't buy high end either, both companies make the bulk of their revenue from mid-range.  The dual-core, tri-cores, maybe low end quads.  That is why AMD doesn't really care about the unlocking thing, because they need to make processors to fill the demand of the mid-range, and most of the people buying them won't bother to unlock them.

Holding overclocking records only marginally helps boost sales.



Melvis said:


> Just to show you the price difference here in AUS from AMD's top CPU and Intel's CPU
> 
> http://www.gamedude.com.au/prod_show.php?art_no=cpAMphenom2_965
> 
> ...



Well of course, but the 975 also completely owns the X4 965 in performance....

If you look at the processor that the X4 965 actually comptetes with, the i7 920, the picture is a little different.

http://www.xpmicro.com.au/cgi-bin/xpmicro/BX80601920.html

And I think if I was in that situation, I'd save the $100 and go with the X4 810...


----------



## btarunr (Aug 17, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I swear I've seen that guy on the left before.



He's Sami "macci" Mäkinen. Legendary overclocker, AMD employee.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 17, 2009)

trt740 said:


> Your statement in your case maybe true but it is far from the norm.  Most budget AMD systems from the last three years can use current chips.. That cannot be said for intel, example, my friends computer  I built is coming up on it's 3 years anniversary  and it can take 83+ AMD CPU's, all the way to the current Phenoms


It is not uncommon for an AM2 board not to accept Phenoms at all, especially non-high end boards. Most of the original AM2 enthusiast class boards can accept Phenom, but not many of the budget boards.



trt740 said:


> Sorry I don't agree, when all the components are factored I  can build a AMD system for alot less and it will perform just about the same as any Intel system out. Also if your saying Asus, Gigabyte and Foxcon don't update their bios on older motherboards that's just flat out not true and those three companies make up about 70 percent of all motherboard sales world wide. Also in the real world the performance  difference is not at all big, stock clock for stock clock. I have owned both systems with top end components and if you didn't tell me which one was in my computer, example a 945 DDR3 /940 DDR2 or a 920 DDr3 / QX9650 DDr2  I could not tell you what was powering my system. Now overclocked I would see some difference but even that's not giant in the real world. In a benchmark you would but not in the real world. In this case your GPU is more important. Why intel doesn't keep a socket compatible with a new cpu drives me crazy and why they don't sell cpus at or near their max potential for a reasonable price also drives me nutts. Can intel blow AMDs door off the answer is yes? Why they continue to FXXK people with their prices and let AMD hang in there I cannot tell you. The only thing I can come up with is if intel releases a I7 at 3.8ghz(stock clock) and prices it at 200.00 AMD might not exist causing a monopoly and the EU might ban them. However, as situation currently stands AMD is cheaper and the better bang for the buck.
> 
> I've used theses systems and maybe it just me but my last 4 upgrades (CPU/Ram/ Motherboard  were a waste of money) My 295 gtx on the other hand is a beast and the only better option money wise was the 300.00 (new) 4870x2 mwave was selling.


I'd be able to tell you right away which system I was on. All I would have to do is fire up Handbrake or Mediacoder to transcode one of my files/dvds.

And AMD charged $1000 for cpus when they had the performance crown as well. So the top-end price argument is moot. Hell, before Core 2 came out, it was cheaper for me to build a mid-range dual core Intel system of similar performance than it was to build a 3800+ X2 system from AMD. (I still bought the AMD anyway).


----------



## MomentoMoir (Aug 17, 2009)

PP Mguire said:


> It would be stupid for infractions to be given considering it wasnt a heated argument/debate. Probably why no mods said anything in the first place.
> 
> And it isnt pointless either. Who ever goes the fastest wins, nuff said. They intent to break the record of highest overclock and shatter all synthetic records as well. You cant possibly tell me this chip isnt full of win.
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v701/pp_mguire/Quakecon 09/SNC00019.jpg



the overclocking was cool to watch even though i didnt stay long and understand it too well lol
this thread is amusing to me


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 17, 2009)

Wile E said:


> And AMD charged $1000 for cpus when they had the performance crown as well. So the top-end price argument is moot. Hell, before Core 2 came out, it was cheaper for me to build a mid-range dual core Intel system of similar performance than it was to build a 3800+ X2 system from AMD. (I still bought the AMD anyway).



Exactly, for the price of what I paid for my single core 939 system when I first built it, I could have put together a dual-core Pentium D machine...


----------



## Melvis (Aug 17, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Well of course, but the 975 also completely owns the X4 965 in performance....
> 
> If you look at the processor that the X4 965 actually comptetes with, the i7 920, the picture is a little different.
> 
> ...



Yes i do realize that the i7 920 is priced well to compete with AMD's top offering and i commend intel for this, but i don't think the i7 975 is 4x the performance of a Phenom 965 to justify the high price? But yes we all know since it can''t be beaten they can set such a high price blablabla (939 days was completely different)

I bought my old 939 3700+ for $325 (that was cheap back then) and now i can get a 3.4GHz Quad core for $50 more, like hello that is just a unreal price for a great performing CPU. 



newtekie1 said:


> Exactly, for the price of what I paid for my single core 939 system when I first built it, I could have put together a dual-core Pentium D machine...



Well you could of bought your self a mid range Dual Core 939 and still be ahead of Intel's Pentium D for cheaper, just remember that even tho intel was getting raped back then that there prices was still very high and some times higher then that of AMD's top CPU's for WAY less performance.

Just remember i working on AUS prices not USA, i know the prices over there are alot closer then here.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 17, 2009)

Melvis said:


> Yes i do realize that the i7 920 is priced well to compete with AMD's top offering and i commend intel for this, but i don't think the i7 975 is 4x the performance of a Phenom 965 to justify the high price? But yes we all know since it can''t be beaten they can set such a high price blablabla (939 days was completely different)
> 
> I bought my old 939 3700+ for $325 (that was cheap back then) and now i can get a 3.4GHz Quad core for $50 more, like hello that is just a unreal price for a great performing CPU.
> 
> ...



That wasn't true over here. The bottom of the line AMD was more expensive to build than the middle of the line Intel. It wasn't until Core2 hit that AMD drastically lowered their prices.

As for $1000 cpus, AMD's $1000 cpus didn't have a good price/performance ratio either. Their prices for top end were just as gouged.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 17, 2009)

Melvis said:


> Yes i do realize that the i7 920 is priced well to compete with AMD's top offering and i commend intel for this, but i don't think the i7 975 is 4x the performance of a Phenom 965 to justify the high price? But yes we all know since it can''t be beaten they can set such a high price blablabla (939 days was completely different)
> 
> I bought my old 939 3700+ for $325 (that was cheap back then) and now i can get a 3.4GHz Quad core for $50 more, like hello that is just a unreal price for a great performing CPU.



Since when in the computer industry has price gone up in the same linear fashion performance does?  The stuff at the top with no competition always, and I mean *always*, costs a ridiculous amount more for little performance improvement.  It doesn't matter if it is Intel or AMD or nVidia or ATi.  And the only difference in the 939 days was that AMD was on top charging insane prices for their processors.




Melvis said:


> Well you could of bought your self a mid range Dual Core 939 and still be ahead of Intel's Pentium D for cheaper, just remember that even tho intel was getting raped back then that there prices was still very high and some times higher then that of AMD's top CPU's for WAY less performance.
> 
> Just remember i working on AUS prices not USA, i know the prices over there are alot closer then here.



No, I think you forget exactly how bad AMD was overpricing their processors back in the 939 days.  I could have gotten the cheapest 939 board, with the cheapest 2GB set of DDR I could find, and because the X2 3800+ was so outragously price, it would have still cost more than a high end Pentium D machine with a high end motherboard and a PD 840.

I will say that Intel still overcharged for the extreme edition chips when they were behind AMD...


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 18, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> While holding world records is nice, it doesn't really help AMD any.  It does increase their "street cred" a little among overclockers, but doesn't really help them in the long run.  The general public doesn't even read about overclocking, and the ones that do don't care to do it.  The general public doesn't buy high end either, both companies make the bulk of their revenue from mid-range.  The dual-core, tri-cores, maybe low end quads.  That is why AMD doesn't really care about the unlocking thing, because they need to make processors to fill the demand of the mid-range, and most of the people buying them won't bother to unlock them.
> 
> Holding overclocking records only marginally helps boost sales.
> 
> ...



I understand what your saying, but look at it this way. The high end AMD is about the same price as the low end i7 and IF you where into extreme overclocking you could pwn a bunch. 

I really do love this forum. I expected a huge flame war and came back to excelent discussion. 



> No, I think you forget exactly how bad AMD was overpricing their processors back in the 939 days.  I could have gotten the cheapest 939 board, with the cheapest 2GB set of DDR I could find, and because the X2 3800+ was so outragously price, it would have still cost more than a high end Pentium D machine with a high end motherboard and a PD 840.
> 
> I will say that Intel still overcharged for the extreme edition chips when they were behind AMD...


True, but you have to admit the 939 X2s absolutely demolished the D's. So the price to 939 X2 is as to the price of i7 today.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 18, 2009)

PP Mguire said:


> True, but you have to admit the 939 X2s absolutely demolished the D's. So the price to 939 X2 is as to the price of i7 today.



I absolutely admit it, just like the i7s demolish the Phenom II.  My point was that AMD did the same thing back then when they could, so people shouldn't kid themselves and say Intel doing it with the i7s are any different, and AMD is the good guy for not overpricing their processors.  AMD doesn't overprice their processors because they can't, not because they don't want to, if they could they would.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Aug 18, 2009)

btarunr said:


> He's Sami "macci" Mäkinen. Legendary overclocker, AMD employee.



i wonder how much AMD pay to this guy in a month


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 18, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> I absolutely admit it, just like the i7s demolish the Phenom II.  My point was that AMD did the same thing back then when they could, so people shouldn't kid themselves and say Intel doing it with the i7s are any different, and AMD is the good guy for not overpricing their processors.  AMD doesn't overprice their processors because they can't, not because they don't want to, if they could they would.


Very true--FX anyone?  The FX-58 was going for like $1200.  The P4 EE 3.8 GHz was going for $1000.  The only reason why the EE didn't sell for $300 is because it wasn't that much slower than the FX-58.  It's not like the performance equivilent of a Grand Canyon we see between Phenom II X4 965 and the Core i7 975; hence the grand canyon sized price difference between them.




hayder.master said:


> i wonder how much AMD pay to this guy in a month


Average wage + free AMD equipment to break.  Derrick Meyer and Hector Ruiz make a few digits more.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Aug 18, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> I've seen a few at 4ghz+ on air.. forgot where that was. I'd get one, but I just bought a GTS 250 and I'm in quite a bit of a financial mess right now..



mmm , nice


----------



## Hayder_Master (Aug 18, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Average wage + free AMD equipment to break.  Derrick Meyer and Hector Ruiz make a few digits more.



and what is the expect Average for AMD


----------



## troyrae360 (Aug 18, 2009)

AMD it the better choice for Overclockers, thats for sure, the new phenoms oc way higher!!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 18, 2009)

hayder.master said:


> and what is the expect Average for AMD


I'd estimate around $30/hr. give or take $20 depending on position (like research lead compared to a secretary).


----------



## Melvis (Aug 18, 2009)

Wile E said:


> That wasn't true over here. The bottom of the line AMD was more expensive to build than the middle of the line Intel. It wasn't until Core2 hit that AMD drastically lowered their prices.
> 
> As for $1000 cpus, AMD's $1000 cpus didn't have a good price/performance ratio either. Their prices for top end were just as gouged.



Well thats fair enough if it wasn't true for over there, then i can totally understand it. Im just saying over here it was the opposite AMDs was cheaper then the Intel base systems in all area's. I still remember looking up the FX-57 and FX-60 and going wow thats expensive (over $1000) but then looking at the intelP4 3.73EE CPU and saying to my self OMG thats insane price at almost $500 more then AMD''s top end. Had to suck for you American's for the 939 era?



newtekie1 said:


> Since when in the computer industry has price gone up in the same linear fashion performance does?  The stuff at the top with no competition always, and I mean *always*, costs a ridiculous amount more for little performance improvement.  It doesn't matter if it is Intel or AMD or nVidia or ATi.  And the only difference in the 939 days was that AMD was on top charging insane prices for their processors.
> 
> Well the price of the top end CPU's from both sides have been in the past and now if they have no competition of course they can set a high price. AMD did this in the 939 era, BUT at the same time so did Intel even tho they was WAY behind in performance(up to 1.3GHz behind) but they still set as high and most of the time higher prices (In AUS anyway) The thing is that with the New Phenom 965 the price in which it is set at (comparing to back in the day) it is just an amazingly priced CPU for the Performance you get, here in AUS, its not priced like over $1000 like intel did even tho they had worse performance back then, so if you look at it like that its priced very very well, they could do a intel and make you pay as much as a high end i7, but they didn't.
> 
> ...



As i said to Will E, it must of been different over there in the states. I remember when the X2 3800 was out and discussing this at TAFE and bringing up the fact that the only Dual Core CPU out on the market for under $200 was the X2 3800, not even the teacher new this. So over here in AUS it WAS the cheapest Dual Core CPU on the market. Motherboards for the 939 was ok ish mine cost me $155 and it was the best Gigabyte 939 Mobo at that time. I cant comment on Intel's sorry.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Aug 18, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'd estimate around $30/hr. give or take $20 depending on position (like research lead compared to a secretary).



ohh , it is very humble i expect more


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 19, 2009)

$50 an hour is $100,000 a year approximately.  There's most likely several that make upwards of $100 an hour ($250,000 a year) and, at the very top, some may make $1,000,000+ a year.

Some corporations have CEOs that only make $1 a year (e.g. Steve Jobs).  People like that make their fortune by owning lots of stock in the company and get paid on the dividends.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 19, 2009)

troyrae360 said:


> AMD it the better choice for Overclockers, thats for sure, the new phenoms oc way higher!!



But the i7 still out performs them at their slower clocks. I don't see how PhII the better choice for OCers.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Aug 19, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> $50 an hour is $100,000 a year approximately.  There's most likely several that make upwards of $100 an hour ($250,000 a year) and, at the very top, some may make $1,000,000+ a year.
> 
> Some corporations have CEOs that only make $1 a year (e.g. Steve Jobs).  People like that make their fortune by owning lots of stock in the company and get paid on the dividends.



50$ in an hour looks good reason to make people study hard to get this ,  nice info dude , thanx a lot


----------



## Kantastic (Aug 19, 2009)

Wile E said:


> But the i7 still out performs them at their slower clocks. I don't see how PhII the better choice for OCers.



Enthusiast overclockers who are looking for records use Phenom II's.

Or at least that's what I think he meant.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 19, 2009)

Kantastic said:


> Enthusiast overclockers who are looking for records use Phenom II's.
> 
> Or at least that's what I think he meant.



What records? Intel still holds everything except clock speeds in this generation. (more on that in a minute)

Don't get me wrong, Phenom II's are still great cpus, and can hold their own in extreme benching, but they aren't THE choice for chasing records unless it's hardware specific records, or clock speed records. As for the clock speed records, Intel still actually holds that as well, with the P4, but at the time, it was outperformed by AMD at much lower clocks. The same thing is happening today, only the roles are reversed.

That to me says that Intel is still the better choice overall when it come to extreme benching, unless you specifically want to go for AMD records, because AMD gave them to your for free/are paying you to clock them, or just for fun. For chasing overall records, Intel is the best choice.


----------



## PP Mguire (Aug 20, 2009)

They still havent put the records up from Quakecon that they blew away.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 20, 2009)

PP Mguire said:


> They still havent put the records up from Quakecon that they blew away.


That mean they aren't verifiable?


----------



## Wile E (Aug 20, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That mean they aren't verifiable?



Or that it's just more clock records, and not performance records. Which are still impressive feats.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 20, 2009)

Wile E said:


> What records? Intel still holds everything except clock speeds in this generation. (more on that in a minute)
> 
> Don't get me wrong, Phenom II's are still great cpus, and can hold their own in extreme benching, but they aren't THE choice for chasing records unless it's hardware specific records, or clock speed records. As for the clock speed records, Intel still actually holds that as well, with the P4, but at the time, it was outperformed by AMD at much lower clocks. The same thing is happening today, only the roles are reversed.
> 
> That to me says that Intel is still the better choice overall when it come to extreme benching, unless you specifically want to go for AMD records, because AMD gave them to your for free/are paying you to clock them, or just for fun. For chasing overall records, Intel is the best choice.



And that is why I've made several comments about how the Phenoms are the Netbursts of the current CPU world.  High clock speeds and still being outperformed by the competition's lower clocked processors.  And when their processors couldn't keep up, what do they do?  Throw more cache in them... sounds familar...


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 20, 2009)

very familiar ....


----------



## trt740 (Aug 20, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> And that is why I've made several comments about how the Phenoms are the Netbursts of the current CPU world.  High clock speeds and still being outperformed by the competition's lower clocked processors.  And when their processors couldn't keep up, what do they do?  Throw more cache in them... sounds familar...



The comparison your making is nowhere nears as lopsided as it was back when the P4 and first AMD 64 were slugging it out. The performance gap is much closer now and if intel could put out a higher clocked cpu with the stock cooler (at a reasonable price) then they should but don't blame AMD for increasing performance and selling their chips at a decent price. Also these chips are not the same as the x2 chips physically so they are not just increasing on chip memory and mhz. The Phenom II chips are a completely different design with a newer memory controller, lower power requirements ,smaller die size and lower operating temperatures.. These chips can take a lot of voltage and still run fairly cool so who cares if AMD pumps up the core speed. To me if the cpu can take it why not. This seems to show just how well designed these chips are.  AMD release a 3.6ghz version!!!!! Watch and see I bet they do.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 20, 2009)

trt740 said:


> The comparison your making is nowhere nears as lopsided as it was back when the P4 and first AMD 64 were slugging it out. The performance gap is much closer now and if intel could put out a higher clocked cpu with the stock cooler (at a reasonable price) then they should but don't blame AMD for increasing performance and selling their chips at a decent price. Also these chips are not the same as the x2 chips physically so they are not just increasing on chip memory and mhz. The Phenom II chips are a completely different design with a newer memory controller, lower power requirements ,smaller die size and lower operating temperatures.. These chips can take a lot of voltage and still run fairly cool so who cares if AMD pumps up the core speed. To me if the cpu can take it why not. This seems to show just how well designed these chips are.  AMD release a 3.6ghz version!!!!! Watch and see I bet they do.



No, the game isn't much closer now, it is about the same actually.

Why do you think I'm blaming AMD for anything, other than not being able to compete and not forcing Intel to lower their prices?  Intel increases performance, and sells their chips at a decent price also.  Why is that hard to understand for you?  The chips from Intel that have competition are reasonably priced.  Just because I'm not freaking about about how great the Phenoms are, doesn't mean I'm bashing AMD, don't try to make it sound that way. AMD raising performance is a good thing, I don't know where you got that I was saying it was bad.

I'm not comparing the Phenom's to the X2, I'm comparing the Phenom II's to the Phenoms.  The entire Phenom series smells of netburst.  Raising clock speeds to the breaking point, upping the cache to try and boost performance...its the same thing Intel did with netburst when they were behind.

And your comments about how well designed they are makes me laugh.  If they were well designed, it wouldn't take 3.6GHz to compete with 2.6GHz.  If they were well designed they wouldn't be at the 140w barrier already.  And if they were well design they would be out overclocking Intel.

And the 965 can get about an 800MHz overclock on air, not exactly anything stellar when the i7's are getting 1GHz+ overclocks on air.  How is that designed well?

Don't get me wrong, the Phenom IIs are a great thing for the industry.  Anything that adds competition is great.  And the Phenom IIs were definitely a step in the right direction for AMD, they just need to keep going in that direction.  And the Phenom IIs are good processors, it is just that the i7s are better, more expensive but better...


----------

