# Woooooahhh: new OFFICIAL PII speed record



## HTC (Dec 18, 2008)

Take a look @ CPUID's hall of fame:

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=464429

5432.08 MHz ...

EDIT

Unlike that 6.0xx MHz record, this one has a CPU-Z validation and notice the RAM used: i wonder if the days of having highly OCable RAM in order to make a very high OC are over (for AMD, anyway) ...


----------



## FilipM (Dec 18, 2008)

On a Pentium II?!  Wow, I remember having my Pentium II just over 1.1Ghz from I think it was 800Mhz, lol.


----------



## HTC (Dec 18, 2008)

File_1993 said:


> On a Pentium II?!  Wow, I remember having my Pentium II just over 1.1Ghz from I think it was 800Mhz, lol.



On a Phenom II, silly  ...


----------



## Triprift (Dec 18, 2008)

Wasnt really looking at them more interested in the i7's and the 8600 but yeah not bad from the phenom II


----------



## TheCrow (Dec 18, 2008)

I wonder why he has a 6600GT in there?


----------



## FilipM (Dec 18, 2008)

HTC said:


> On a Phenom II, silly  ...



 Well I saw PII and that crossed my mind, lol...shows how much sleep i get.


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Dec 18, 2008)

TheCrow said:


> I wonder why he has a 6600GT in there?



Something is amiss with that, it also says the GPU is DirectX 10


----------



## WarEagleAU (Dec 18, 2008)

Id like to see the vcore he is using. Doesnt look amiss but I Wonder why such a lowly card.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Dec 18, 2008)

TheCrow said:


> I wonder why he has a 6600GT in there?



To connect his monitor.


----------



## HTC (Dec 18, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> To connect his monitor.



LOL ... 

Is it me or is that RAM underclocked?


----------



## zithe (Dec 18, 2008)

You can install DX10 in vista even if you don't have a compliant card, I think.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 18, 2008)

i dont see whats special about this i have seen several over 6ghz? this is just the 1st person that has done validation on his


----------



## zithe (Dec 18, 2008)

cdawall said:


> i dont see whats special about this i have seen several over 6ghz? this is just the 1st person that has done validation on his



That's what is special. It's proof.


----------



## _jM (Dec 18, 2008)

Beertintedgoggles said:


> Something is amiss with that, it also says the GPU is DirectX 10



saw that too. And why would AMD OC a Flagship chip like this Using an NVIDIA GPU? No 4800 series in there .... something to think about.




DanTheBanjoman said:


> To connect his monitor.




LMAO


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Dec 18, 2008)

I thought he meant Pentium II as well!  I was like...  wait...  Pentium II cannot go past 1ghz at all, how did it get to 5...


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 18, 2008)

Vista will say any GPU is DX10. That validation page is so cool tho. I can't believe they didn't validate it on that event.. They would have broke some records!


----------



## AphexDreamer (Dec 18, 2008)

Yes Vista will always report the System being DX10 even on non DX10 Hardware.

So if no matter who does  it(on vista) if you run dxdiag you will see it say direct x version 10.


----------



## HTC (Dec 18, 2008)

zithe said:


> That's what is special. It's proof.



Exactly.

It's easy to say you OCed processor X to speed Y but it doesn't really mean anything if you can't prove it.

With the validation, you get to see which RAM, GPU other related speeds and such.



Beertintedgoggles said:


> Something is amiss with that, it also says the GPU is DirectX 10



I noticed that too: dunno what to think of it, really 



WarEagleAU said:


> Id like to see the vcore he is using. Doesnt look amiss but I Wonder why such a lowly card.



I would expect something like 1.55+: maybe even 1.6+.

Pity only CPU-Z validation is available: would love to see a realtemp 2.8x+ screenie of that as well since it would record low and high temps.



AphexDreamer said:


> Yes Vista will always report the System being DX10 even on non DX10 Hardware.
> 
> So if no matter who does  it(on vista) if you run dxdiag you will see it say direct x version 10.



And that answers the 2nd quote in this reply: thanks, dude!


----------



## servermonkey (Dec 18, 2008)

TheCrow said:


> I wonder why he has a 6600GT in there?



less power reqd?
limited p/s?


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 18, 2008)

servermonkey said:


> less power reqd?
> limited p/s?



Yeah, I believe it's for less power draw. Same thing goes for the 2x512 sticks. I do the same when I'm benchmarking hardware. I'll usually go with 2GB of ram instead of 4. I always get a better OC that way. To get a OC like that you have to use all of of the tools in your arsenal. Lowering the power draw is one of those tools.


----------



## Gam'ster (Dec 18, 2008)

Nice find HTC, PII shaping up to be a screamer ( we hope )


----------



## HTC (Dec 18, 2008)

Gam'ster said:


> Nice find HTC, PII shaping up to be a screamer ( we hope )



Thanks, dude!


----------



## _jM (Dec 18, 2008)

Paulieg said:


> Yeah, I believe it's for less power draw. Same thing goes for the 2x512 sticks. I do the same when I'm benchmarking hardware. I'll usually go with 2GB of ram instead of 4. I always get a better OC that way. To get a OC like that you have to use all of of the tools in your arsenal. Lowering the power draw is one of those tools.



Im the same way. I took out my PhysX Card, due to the fact that I dont use it, and it was a waste of power consumption and space. I also run off 1 HDD after I install the OS and all my goodies, no need for it unless Im doing my monthly back up/or want some MP3s that i havent listened to in a while. Also helps if there is ever a problem with the system and something happens to my hardware, I always know this drive with all my stuff on it is still good. I run with 2gb installed also, before I took out all the unneeded extra's in my pc, I could clock high with this chip but it wasn't stable untill I lowered the power consumption by doing what I stated above.

Either way, even though the card being used here is for less power draw. Why not use a AMD/ATi card?


----------



## kid41212003 (Dec 18, 2008)

HT speed is ~213 MHz, will really hurt performance if you want to run at that speed.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 18, 2008)

Wow how did they manage that on a Pentium II?  And why are people still using these things?!?!

Yes, I know you meant Phenom II, but PII means Pentium II.


----------



## TheCrow (Dec 18, 2008)

Lol


----------



## johnnyfiive (Dec 18, 2008)

Woooooo.


----------



## trickson (Dec 18, 2008)

When I see some benchmarks that will convince me LOL ...


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Dec 18, 2008)

This is only the beginning.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Dec 18, 2008)

Here are some air cooled OC results. No benches *yet*. Blame NDA.

http://oktabit.foracamp.gr/content/first-look-phenom-ii-x4-940-english-version
















(this was done using the 9950 stock cooler, awesome.)


----------



## Morgoth (Dec 18, 2008)

stil hast beaten the highest mhz overclock 8ghz by P4


----------



## TheCrow (Dec 18, 2008)

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=464429


----------



## Castiel (Dec 18, 2008)

That is awesome.


----------



## KBD (Dec 18, 2008)

what cooling was using to achieve this? i hope its water though i really doubt it, prolly phase or LN2.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 18, 2008)

Morgoth said:


> stil hast beaten the highest mhz overclock 8ghz by P4



why do you constantly post in AMD threads if all your going to do is be negative?


----------



## JrRacinFan (Dec 18, 2008)

OK here's my take on the low dram speed:

To obtain higher clocks you must relax the memory controller with lower dram speed. Hmmm ...

Anyone else agree? Now this is just speculation for myself that lower dram speed would help acheive this.


----------



## Bluefox1115 (Dec 18, 2008)

+1. Onboard memory controllers can get taxed.. I blew out a few sets of Crucial Ballistix and Corsair XMS ddr2-800 running over 1100MHz, and CPU over 3.4GHz. The OC shown is most likely on 1.5Vcore..


----------



## johnnyfiive (Dec 18, 2008)

KBD said:


> what cooling was using to achieve this? i hope its water though i really doubt it, prolly phase or LN2.



4.0 was done on air with a 9550 cooler (stock one from the phenom 9950). The 5.0+GHz were done on LN2.


----------



## Bytor (Dec 18, 2008)

ooooo Nice and on my MB also....Shwing...


----------



## Morgoth (Dec 18, 2008)

cdawall said:


> why do you constantly post in AMD threads if all your going to do is be negative?



I am not being Negative!
and i am not allways posting in amd threads
is it illigal for me to post in amd threads?


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 18, 2008)

Morgoth said:


> I am not being Negative!
> and i am not allways posting in amd threads
> is it illigal for me to post in amd threads?



apparently ...


----------



## cdawall (Dec 18, 2008)

Morgoth said:


> I am not being Negative!
> and i am not allways posting in amd threads
> is it illigal for me to post in amd threads?



it was a completely off topic post that made no sense and just compared the AMD with something its not even remotely trying for


and if all your going to do is say hey i have an intel or intel did XX better than AMD then why post there?


if your going to post post something useful otherwise your either spamming or trolling its as simple as that


----------



## razaron (Dec 18, 2008)

if the pII's are around the same performance as core2's clock for clock and priced just right tha would probably make me move onto the dragon. 
and morgoth's allowed to diss amd, his signature says so


----------



## dark2099 (Dec 18, 2008)

kid41212003 said:


> HT speed is ~213 MHz, will really hurt performance if you want to run at that speed.



From everything I heard about the AM2 chips currently that doesn't matter at all, and if the architecture of the PII is similar than shouldn't matter either.  Heck on the i7 it supposedly doesn't matter if you have HT on or off for benching.


----------



## spearman914 (Dec 18, 2008)

Why block the voltage??


----------



## Nick89 (Dec 18, 2008)

HTC said:


> Pity only CPU-Z validation is available: would love to see a realtemp 2.8x+ screenie of that as well since it would record low and high temps.



Realtemp only works on Intel processors I thought.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 18, 2008)

spearman914 said:


> Why block the voltage??



part of NDA?


----------



## HTC (Dec 18, 2008)

Nick89 said:


> Realtemp only works on Intel processors I thought.



Ah, yes: completely forgot 

The reason i mentioned that particular prog is because it can monitor current, lowest and highest temps achieved while running, which was the intention.


----------



## spearman914 (Dec 18, 2008)

cdawall said:


> part of NDA?



Forgot about NDA.


----------



## Nick89 (Dec 18, 2008)

kid41212003 said:


> HT speed is ~213 MHz, will really hurt performance if you want to run at that speed.



That is not the HT speed, that is the Bus speed it will not hurt performance. Normal bus speed is 200mhz.


----------



## spearman914 (Dec 18, 2008)

Morgoth said:


> stil hast beaten the highest mhz overclock 8ghz by P4



Yea who cares. a 3 GHz C2D could beat it.


----------



## kid41212003 (Dec 18, 2008)

dark2099 said:


> From everything I heard about the AM2 chips currently that doesn't matter at all, and if the architecture of the PII is similar than shouldn't matter either.  Heck on the i7 it supposedly doesn't matter if you have HT on or off for benching.



HT speed will limit memory bandwidth, the current AM2 cpu already at 1000Mhz, all information go in and out through Hyper Transport.

HT (Hyper Transport) = FSB  = QPI (Not exactly, but they are similar).

HT with Nehalem isn't Hyper Transport, It's Hyper Threading, 2 threads per core, 4 cores = 8 threads. (Useless, if application/game only use 1 or 2 cores)

In this case, Hyper Transport would be QPI link for Nehalem , and It can't get any lower than 4800GT/s.


----------



## Nick89 (Dec 18, 2008)

cdawall said:


> why do you constantly post in AMD threads if all your going to do is be negative?



Because he's an Intel fanboy troll.


feeding the trolls


----------



## TheGoat Eater (Dec 18, 2008)

Not to  rain on your parade but the Phenom II is TEH SUK  - just trust me ok.. thanx


----------



## Nick89 (Dec 18, 2008)

TheGoat Eater said:


> Not to  rain on your parade but the Phenom II is TEH SUK  - just trust me ok.. thanx



You are just trolling, You post without any proof that the PII sucks and tell us to just trust you?:shadedshu


----------



## TheGoat Eater (Dec 18, 2008)

lol - because I have one and I hate it  ... I am no troll because I speak the truth just a performance whore,... oh and it still sucks   yeah it clocks but w/o performance... no SS for you LOL

Edit - I have 2

Double Edit - The MSI 790GX Platinum board is epic fail ... wish AMD sent a DFI FX instead, oh well DFI is sending one anywho...


----------



## spearman914 (Dec 18, 2008)

TheGoat Eater said:


> lol - because I have one and I hate it  ... I am no troll because I speak the truth just a performance whore,... oh and it still sucks   yeah it clocks but w/o performance... no SS for you LOL
> 
> Edit - I have 2



It's not out...


----------



## TheGoat Eater (Dec 18, 2008)

spearman914 said:


> It's not out...



hmm - if it is not out how are people getting and testing these ?  I recall an event where they used them and OCed the hell out of them for show - did they use bogus stunt double chips or do you need to reword that semi-statement to not out for GENERAL PUBLIC

"of course it's not out yet MR., but I still have two  "


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 18, 2008)

Lots of people ( like hardware reviewers, beta testers, and employees of hardware & computer manufacturers, and some people working in distributors ) have some CPUs already.
And TheGoat Eater is one of them


----------



## overclocker (Dec 18, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> Lots of people ( like hardware reviewers, beta testers, and employees of hardware & computer manufacturers, and some people working in distributors ) have some CPUs already.
> And TheGoat Eater is one of them



LOL you could just be another TheGoat Eeater who made another account for all we know.


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 18, 2008)

overclocker said:


> LOL you could just be another TheGoat Eeater who made another account for all we know.



Could be.
But I'm not.
If you're in doubt, my MSN is in my profile details


----------



## TheGoat Eater (Dec 18, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> Lots of people ( like hardware reviewers, beta testers, and employees of hardware & computer manufacturers, and some people working in distributors ) have some CPUs already.
> And TheGoat Eater is one of them



Thanks man  never thought you would actually post on this forum... usually Greek sites and XS and other Hardcore places...



overclocker said:


> LOL you could just be another TheGoat Eeater who made another account for all we know.


FYI - http://benchzone.com/ this is his site  I would not pretend to be him as I would make an arse of my self trying to pretend I know my stuff as well as he does  BZ - R E S P E C T


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 18, 2008)

TheGoat Eater said:


> Thanks man  never thought you would actually post on this forum... usually Greek sites and XS and other Hardcore places...



I'd like to participate in many forums around the globe, but my time is pretty limited lately.
I used to lurk TPU forums a wee bit over the last few years.




TheGoat Eater said:


> FYI - http://benchzone.com/ this is his site  I would not pretend to be him as I would make an arse of my self trying to pretend I know my stuff as well as he does  BZ - R E S P E C T



Haha, no need to "advertise" my site mate 
Thanks anyways.

Knowledge is something everyone can get, it just takes some studying and "practicing".
There's always something new out there for everyone, we learn new things every day


----------



## cdawall (Dec 18, 2008)

TheGoat Eater said:


> Not to  rain on your parade but the Phenom II is TEH SUK  - just trust me ok.. thanx




i heard the opposite from people who had them about a month ago?


----------



## JrRacinFan (Dec 18, 2008)

cdawall said:


> i heard the opposite from people who had them about a month ago?



Same here. When does the NDA lift again?


----------



## TheGoat Eater (Dec 18, 2008)

I was spoiled be i7 and DDR3 - even C2D and DDR3/2 is better imho

Its a personal choice - not attacking just spouting of my impression of it - though the board REALLY sucks and I need a FX board to be happy/happier most likely


----------



## sno.lcn (Dec 18, 2008)

spearman914 said:


> Yea who cares. a 3 GHz C2D could beat it.



Haha that reminds me.  On the way to my 7.5ghz P4 overclock the other day, I briefly stopped at 6.7ghz and ran a super pi 1m.  And it took 20 seconds 



JrRacinFan said:


> Same here. When does the NDA lift again?



I think only a couple more days.  It's around the 20th IIRC.


----------



## JrRacinFan (Dec 18, 2008)

lmao @ GoatEater's sig!



sno.lcn said:


> I think only a couple more days.  It's around the 20th IIRC.


----------



## TheGoat Eater (Dec 18, 2008)

I think 1/8/09 but I haven't the foggiest - good to see you here sno.lcn , guess this page is over running with XSers now


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 19, 2008)

cdawall said:


> i heard the opposite from people who had them about a month ago?



It's how you look at it that makes the difference between saying that it sucks or that it's a good product.

They do overclock better than the first generation of Phenoms, the average 24/7 stable overclock on air with a Phenom II 920 / 940 will be at approx 3.75GHz, with some good chips reaching or even surpassing the 4GHz mark by a bit, and some "duds" stopping at 3.6GHz or so.
Unfortunately they're not on par with a Core i7 ( even with HyperThreading disabled ) on a clock per clock basis ( clock per clock = running both processors at the same operating frequency ).
They're also behind "Penryn" ( Q9450/Q9550/Q9650/QX9650/QX9770 ) on a clock per clock basis as well.

The average 24/7 stable overclock of the Q9450's is now around 3.8GHz, and you need a approx. 4.15GHz overclock on a Phenom II 920/940 to beat the Q9450 clocked at 3.8GHz.

If you're looking for the absolute performance in most applications and usage scenarios Intel remains the top dog in the desktop sector.

If you already have a AM2 based setup, upgrading to a Phenom II will give you a healthy boost in the CPU limited applications.

In the end it all depends on what you want, what you have, what are you going to run on the PC, and your budget for the build/upgrade.



JrRacinFan said:


> Same here. When does the NDA lift again?



January 8th, 2009



TheGoat Eater said:


> MSI - the board REALLY sucks and I need a FX board to be happy/happier most likely



Of course it sucks, it's... em es eye :
Any news on grabbing a M3A79T Deluxe ?



sno.lcn said:


> I think only a couple more days.  It's around the 20th IIRC.



I've got some info from a shop here, they told me that they'll be selling the new Phenom II's on the 28th of this month, "we don't know about the rest" they said, so I guess they're just going to ignore the embargo ( NDA ).

Maybe AMD decided to change the day the NDA will be lifted ?
Don't think so, but I'm going to double-check it tomorrow.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 19, 2008)

sno.lcn said:


> Haha that reminds me.  On the way to my 7.5ghz P4 overclock the other day, I briefly stopped at 6.7ghz and ran a super pi 1m.  And it took 20 seconds
> 
> 
> 
> I think only a couple more days.  It's around the 20th IIRC.



it was the 20th but got moved back when they moved release day

hopefully with some non-ES bios's we can see some better clocks


----------



## overclocker (Dec 19, 2008)

TheGoat Eater said:


> Thanks man  never thought you would actually post on this forum... usually Greek sites and XS and other Hardcore places...
> 
> 
> FYI - http://benchzone.com/ this is his site  I would not pretend to be him as I would make an arse of my self trying to pretend I know my stuff as well as he does  BZ - R E S P E C T



Well glad to see your not making more then one account, and nice to meet you lol.

And welcome benchzwoner


----------



## Bytor (Dec 19, 2008)

Morgoth said:


> stil hast beaten the highest mhz overclock 8ghz by P4



Neither has the i7...


----------



## sno.lcn (Dec 19, 2008)

And neither has C2D, which pwns i7 for high overclocks


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 19, 2008)

TheGoat Eater said:


> lol - because I have one and I hate it  ... I am no troll because I speak the truth just a performance whore,... oh and it still sucks   yeah it clocks but w/o performance... no SS for you LOL
> 
> Edit - I have 2
> 
> Double Edit - The MSI 790GX Platinum board is epic fail ... wish AMD sent a DFI FX instead, oh well DFI is sending one anywho...



Damn it goat. You have me a bit worried. I've got a 940 on pre-order, after selling all of my Intel stuff.


----------



## Bytor (Dec 19, 2008)

Paulieg said:


> Damn it goat. You have me a bit worried. I've got a 940 on pre-order, after selling all of my Intel stuff.




Worried also...  I don't have one on pre-order, but not sure I will play once it comes out...
May wait a little and see what others say about it...


----------



## KBD (Dec 19, 2008)

Bytor said:


> Worried also...  I don't have one on pre-order, but not sure I will play once it comes out...
> May wait a little and see what others say about it...



i dont think its time to worry yet, wait for some reviews, non-ES chips, mature bioses, etc. I still think it should be a great chip and a more or less a match for C2Q.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 19, 2008)

Paulieg said:


> Damn it goat. You have me a bit worried. I've got a 940 on pre-order, after selling all of my Intel stuff.



you'll be fine trust me i have ummm seen some benchies that i cant post here.....if you catch my drift


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 19, 2008)

HTC said:


> Take a look @ CPUID's hall of fame:
> 
> http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=464429
> 
> ...


Geil ram! you gota be joking!!!! know wonder .... DOMINATOR OR PATRIOT sticks are the key


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 19, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> Geil ram! you gota be joking!!!! know wonder .... DOMINATOR OR PATRIOT sticks are the key



GeIL used to have some wonderful kits back in the DDR1 Socket939 era, the incredible 1.5-2-2-5 UTT-BH5 kits that used to hit DDR1-500+ ( 250MHz+ ) 1.5*-2-2-5, the GeIL One TCCD series, with some great batches ( DDR1-550+ (275MHz+) 2.5-3-3-5 and DDR1-600+ (300MHz+) 3-x-x-x ) and the "Emperor" the kits with the weird ICs that could do 2.5-3-3-7 at DDR1-540+ ( 270MHz+ ).
They also had some great DDR2 kits with Micron D9GMH & D9GKX chips doing DDR2-1100+ 4-4-4-12 and those amazing cherry-picked DDR2-1200 4-4-4-12 kits... I burnt mine at only 3.91V 

It's all about the ICs ( chips ) used and the binning process, the rest is just marketing and a brand name 

RAM ain't that much of a factor this time, as they're using the CPU Multiplier to overclock the processor instead of raising the HTT frequency.


----------



## Raiderman (Dec 19, 2008)

TheGoat Eater said:


> lol - because I have one and I hate it  ... I am no troll because I speak the truth just a performance whore,... oh and it still sucks   yeah it clocks but w/o performance... no SS for you LOL
> 
> Edit - I have 2
> 
> Double Edit - The MSI 790GX Platinum board is epic fail ... wish AMD sent a DFI FX instead, oh well DFI is sending one anywho...



http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=73124

 You seem to be pretty good with that camera when you are selling off your hardware!

Why dont you put it to use and show us some pics of your Phenom II's??? 

Also, how does someone that is selling hardware two months ago, because he lost his job, all of a sudden have access to engineering samples of the new Phenom???


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 19, 2008)

Raiderman said:


> http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=73124
> 
> You seem to be pretty good with that camera when you are selling off your hardware!
> 
> ...



You don't have to be a jerk mate.
I'm quite sure that you could ask him to show you a photo of the CPU in a kind way.
Offending the other party in such a way doesn't cut it most of the times, and why should he post a photo after all if you don't believe him and asked him to post some photos ( to prove that he has a CPU in his possession ) in such a way ?

Someone who "lost" his job two months ago, moved from Iowa to New York and is now working with another company in the IT business.
By the way those chips are the latest revision and the same with the ones in the channels now that are being moved to the shops already


----------



## Raiderman (Dec 19, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> It's how you look at it that makes the difference between saying that it sucks or that it's a good product.
> 
> They do overclock better than the first generation of Phenoms, the average 24/7 stable overclock on air with a Phenom II 920 / 940 will be at approx 3.75GHz, with some good chips reaching or even surpassing the 4GHz mark by a bit, and some "duds" stopping at 3.6GHz or so.
> Unfortunately they're not on par with a Core i7 ( even with HyperThreading disabled ) on a clock per clock basis ( clock per clock = running both processors at the same operating frequency ).
> ...


----------



## sno.lcn (Dec 19, 2008)

Well, there's only so much one can show you until NDA is over.  



Raiderman said:


> As for this statement, totally false from everything, I mean everything that has already been published on the web, including the OCW benches, which shows it is equal to the QX 9770, but behind the i7.
> http://my.ocworkbench.com/2008/asro...verclocking/Phenom_II_X4-FEAR-benchmark-5.htm
> 
> For someone that is the IT field he sure has a way with the english language. I have seen way too many internet bone heads come in and act like they are all that, so until I see the proof on the table, I am always cautious.




I hope you don't base all of your performance expecatations on a single review, especially that one  :shadedshu


----------



## Raiderman (Dec 19, 2008)

sno.lcn said:


> Well, there's only so much one can show you until NDA is over.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, i guess I can just take the word of benchzowner, thats what I should do.


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 19, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> It's how you look at it that makes the difference between saying that it sucks or that it's a good product.
> 
> They do overclock better than the first generation of Phenoms, the average 24/7 stable overclock on air with a Phenom II 920 / 940 will be at approx 3.75GHz, with some good chips reaching or even surpassing the 4GHz mark by a bit, and some "duds" stopping at 3.6GHz or so.
> Unfortunately they're not on par with a Core i7 ( even with HyperThreading disabled ) on a clock per clock basis ( clock per clock = running both processors at the same operating frequency ).
> They're also behind "Penryn" ( Q9450/Q9550/Q9650/QX9650/QX9770 ) on a clock per clock basis as well.





Raiderman said:


> As for this statement, totally false from everything, I mean everything that has already been published on the web, including the OCW benches, which shows it is equal to the QX 9770, but behind the i7.
> http://my.ocworkbench.com/2008/asro...verclocking/Phenom_II_X4-FEAR-benchmark-5.htm



Sorry to say that, but the OCworkbench numbers are incorrect, and they also indicated ( on their forums if I recall correctly ) that there was something wrong with their rig and their BIOS.
Give it some time and we'll have some trustworthy and detailed reviews with newer motherboards and mature BIOSes.

I'm going to attend a private benchmarking session with a Phenom 920 & a 940 tomorrow, we'll run some benchmarks on air to see what these two CPUs are capable of on air and then toss in the CPU pot and use LN2 ( Liquid Nitrogen ) to cool them down and overclock the hell out of them.

I'll more than likely have some new benchmarks and numbers ( both normal benchmarks for a review and extreme overclocking numbers from 3D Mark06, 3D Mark Vantage, etc ) to share with you guys.



Raiderman said:


> For someone that is the IT field he sure has a way with the english language. I have seen way too many internet bone heads come in and act like they are all that, so until I see the proof on the table, I am always cautious.



You are right about that, everybody can claim to know or have things on the net, surely there are lots of liers and pretenders, but there are also lots of reputable and trustworthy people from the industry, reviews sites and even some normal people with connections.

If you really need to know, I can vouch for TheGoat Eater, and his boss can do that as well


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 19, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> Sorry to say that, but the OCworkbench numbers are incorrect, and they also indicated ( on their forums if I recall correctly ) that there was something wrong with their rig and their BIOS.
> Give it some time and we'll have some trustworthy and detailed reviews with newer motherboards and mature BIOSes.
> 
> I'm going to attend a private benchmarking session with a Phenom 920 & a 940 tomorrow, we'll run some benchmarks on air to see what these two CPUs are capable of on air and then toss in the CPU pot and use LN2 ( Liquid Nitrogen ) to cool them down and overclock the hell out of them.
> ...



If you are able, please post some results from that benchmarking session.


----------



## HTC (Dec 19, 2008)

Paulieg said:


> If you are able, please post some results from that benchmarking session.



I doubt he can, due to the NDA.

Some screenies of CPU-Z, with covered voltage, he might be able to post but, as for benches, i have my doubts.


----------



## Raiderman (Dec 19, 2008)

Im not trying to be jerk or anything, I think alot of us are hoping (wishing), AMD pulls there head out, and competes better, for the sake of competition (aka pricing). If you look at the sneak peak on XS, you will note that these results look very promising, so I will hold my judgment until after they are released. Alot of people here are getting excited to see the new Phenom compete, and to come in here and say what he said, is just plain trolling IMO.


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 19, 2008)

HTC said:


> I doubt he can, due to the NDA.
> 
> Some screenies of CPU-Z, with covered voltage, he might be able to post but, as for benches, i have my doubts.



I'm not bound by any kind of NDA 

Let's post something for a start, shall we ? 







Note that the Core i7 score was taken with HTT ( HyperThreading Technology ) disabled.
The same test with HTT enabled gave us:
Overall Score: P17364
GPU Score: 16921
CPU Score: 18843

p.s. The board used for the AMD platform is a Foxconn Destroyer.

Edit:


Raiderman said:


> Im not trying to be jerk or anything, I think alot of us are hoping (wishing), AMD pulls there head out, and competes better, for the sake of competition (aka pricing). If you look at the sneak peak on XS, you will note that these results look very promising, so I will hold my judgment until after they are released. Alot of people here are getting excited to see the new Phenom compete, and to come in here and say what he said, is just plain trolling IMO.



I understand that most normal people ( I'm separating the hardcore fanboys of each side from normal people  ) hope for a strong comeback and a change of the performance crown holder, I wish AMD could deliver that with Phenom II, but they aren't going to, at least know they're going to be closer to Intel than before ( in my mind the first generation of Phenoms is a huge disappointment, close to the biggest disappointment of the last few years, the ATi R600 GPU ).
TheGoat Eater might have exaggerated a bit from his... enthusiasm, but his "point" stands true, the Core i7 will remain the fastest CPU series and the "fully-fledged" Penryns will be a bit faster than the Phenom II's.

Friendly,
Bill


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 19, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> I'm not bound by any kind of NDA
> 
> Let's post something for a start, shall we ?
> 
> ...



Thanks man. What would you consider to be "fully-fledged" Penryns?


----------



## Raiderman (Dec 19, 2008)

I have a question also? How are you able to get better scores on the i7 with HT enabled? 
Every other bench I have seen shows a degradation in performance. That it is actually better to keep it disabled?


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 19, 2008)

Paulieg said:


> Thanks man. What would you consider to be "fully-fledged" Penryns?



The processors based on the Yorkfield core with all the cache ( 12MB total, 6MB per die ).
The Q9450, Q9550, Q9650, QX9650, QX9770 that is.
The Q9450 at its default frequency will be struggling against the Phenom II 940, in a 40 tests review the Phenom II 940 will win in about 30 of the 40 tests.


----------



## HTC (Dec 19, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> I'm not bound by any kind of NDA
> 
> Let's post something for a start, shall we ?
> 
> ...



That's quite the difference: ~3.4K in CPU score, and that's before HTT.

Still, i'm pretty sure they will be better then C2Q (not refering to the unlocked ones), which will drive their prices severely down.


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 19, 2008)

Raiderman said:


> I have a question also? How are you able to get better scores on the i7 with HT enabled?
> Every other bench I have seen shows a degradation in performance. That it is actually better to keep it disabled?



The HyperThreading Technology has its pros & cons.
If the application you're about to use is Multi-Threaded and has some efficient and well optimized code it can benefit from having HTT enabled.
Let me list some applications that show a increase in performance with HyperThreading on:
CineBench 9
CineBench 10
Soon to be released CineBench 11
Maxon Cinema4D
SPECviewPerf 10
FutureMark's 3D Mark06 and 3D Mark Vantage, PC Mark05 and PC Mark Vantage
wwwww's wPrime
Chessbase's Fritz Chess Benchmark
Pov-Ray v3.7 Beta
DVD Shrink
WinRAR

On the other side most of the single-threaded applications and some multi-threaded programs that can utilize only 2 or 3 cores show some loss in performance with HyperThreading enabled.

It's a tick tock game


----------



## HTC (Dec 19, 2008)

Question: do these CPU eat a lot of power?


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 19, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> The processors based on the Yorkfield core with all the cache ( 12MB total, 6MB per die ).
> The Q9450, Q9550, Q9650, QX9650, QX9770 that is.
> The Q9450 at its default frequency will be struggling against the Phenom II 940, in a 40 tests review the Phenom II 940 will win in about 30 of the 40 tests.



OK. I was guessing they would fall b/t the Q9550 and Q9650 performance wise. That would make the 940 priced well at $275-$300.


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 19, 2008)

HTC said:


> Question: do these CPU eat a lot of power?



Haven't checked that out yet.
We only had a wall-socket energy meter but I don't trust those, and even if they're very accurate it still doesn't show us the exact power consumption of a CPU to compare it with another.

I'll do some measurements when my new equipment arrives, that way we'll measure the power draw of the CPU only.



Paulieg said:


> OK. I was guessing they would fall b/t the Q9550 and Q9650 performance wise. That would make the 940 priced well at $275-$300.



Forgot to mention that the Phenom II 920 will also be very competitive with the Q9450 as well.

I don't have a clear image on the pricing yet, but I'm hoping for something good


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 19, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> Haven't checked that out yet.
> We only had a wall-socket energy meter but I don't trust those, and even if they're very accurate it still doesn't show us the exact power consumption of a CPU to compare it with another.
> 
> I'll do some measurements when my new equipment arrives, that way we'll measure the power draw of the CPU only.
> ...



I pre-ordered one at $293 shipped. I've heard prices as low as $275, but I believe this is based on volume pricing and not individual chips.


----------



## Raiderman (Dec 19, 2008)

There are just way too many variables right now to make an accurate judgement. I will wait till NDA is lifted.


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 19, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> It's how you look at it that makes the difference between saying that it sucks or that it's a good product.
> 
> They do overclock better than the first generation of Phenoms, the average 24/7 stable overclock on air with a Phenom II 920 / 940 will be at approx 3.75GHz, with some good chips reaching or even surpassing the 4GHz mark by a bit, and some "duds" stopping at 3.6GHz or so.
> Unfortunately they're not on par with a Core i7 ( even with HyperThreading disabled ) on a clock per clock basis ( clock per clock = running both processors at the same operating frequency ).
> ...



I'd love to have the NDA and release date confirmed. The dates are all over the place. My 940 is suppose to leave the factory on 12/27.


----------



## Elementlmage (Dec 19, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> Haven't checked that out yet.
> We only had a wall-socket energy meter but I don't trust those, and even if they're very accurate it still doesn't show us the exact power consumption of a CPU to compare it with another.
> 
> I'll do some measurements when my new equipment arrives, that way we'll measure the power draw of the CPU only.
> ...



Sandra is a great little program that will give you benchmarks for just about any conceivable situation and will give you power consumption stats on individual components.

Also, I noticed that just about every program you listed was a benchmark. There are a few real programs that benefit from HT (3DS anyone?) but very few. For most normal situations HT cause more headache than benefit.

As well, the PIIs tend to have quite an advantage in apps that use a lot of multi-threaded FP calculations. GTA 4 makes some great uses of this(too bad it looks and plays like ass) and Phenom processors tend to vastly out perform Intel's quads(Even the suggested hardware on the back shows this.(Intel quad @ 2.4 GHz, AMD Tri-core @ 2.1 GHz) I kinda wish more games and apps would start using a parallelism scheme(SupCom comes to mind, 10k is nice... but not at 2 FPS), but then again if they did, Nvidia and ATI would put them out of business.

Meh, my 2 cents


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 19, 2008)

Elementlmage said:


> Sandra is a great little program that will give you benchmarks for just about any conceivable situation and will give you power consumption stats on individual components.



Sandra is a very very synthetic program, that gives you no valuable information regarding a CPU's performance at all mate.
Also the power consumption information is based on their own measurements and when overclocked they're just estimations ( that do not come close to the reality most of the times ).

Synthetic or non-synthetic a single benchmark/application will never ever give you the impression of a CPU's performance in real-life tasks and various applications and usage scenarios.

Judging a CPU's performance with Sandra is like saying "The Q9450 is better in 3D Mark Vantage than the Phenom II 920, so the Q9450 is a better cpu ( in overall )".



Elementlmage said:


> Also, I noticed that just about every program you listed was a benchmark. There are a few real programs that benefit from HT (3DS anyone?) but very few. For most normal situations HT cause more headache than benefit.



I listed some applications and benchmarks that most of you might've seen or even used in the past.
There are quite a few professional applications that are multi-threaded.
A lot of audio creation/editing applications, mixing application, audio & audio/video encoding/transcoding/editing tools, CAD & CAM applications, mathematics applications, physics ( science ) applications, server applications, etc.



Elementlmage said:


> As well, the PIIs tend to have quite an advantage in apps that use a lot of multi-threaded FP calculations. GTA 4 makes some great uses of this(too bad it looks and plays like ass) and Phenom processors tend to vastly out perform Intel's quads(Even the suggested hardware on the back shows this.(Intel quad @ 2.4 GHz, AMD Tri-core @ 2.1 GHz)



Actually the Core 2 Quads and the Core i7s are faster in GTA IV than the Phenoms ( both I & II ), and this game should NOT be mentioned at all as it is surely the worst port ever, with zero optimization and lots of bugs.
It's a resource monster for no obvious reason and without amazing graphics, effects or physics.


----------



## Morgoth (Dec 19, 2008)

Bytor said:


> Neither has the i7...



did i said that? NO!


----------



## Bytor (Dec 19, 2008)

Morgoth said:


> did i said that? NO!




   I know you didn't, I DID!!!    lolz


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 19, 2008)

HTT ( HyperThreading Technology ) disabled to make things fair ( enable it, raise the DDR3 frequency and unleash the dragon...5k+ scores, but that wouldn't be so nice or fair for a clock per clock comparison )


----------



## cdawall (Dec 19, 2008)

now thats what i wanted to see


----------



## KBD (Dec 19, 2008)

so what does that test tell us? and what test is that?


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 19, 2008)

It's the compression ( archiving ) test from WinRAR.
It benchmarks the CPU in a real-life compression scenario and reports the average compression rates ( in KiloBytes per second ).


----------



## Binge (Dec 20, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> HTT ( HyperThreading Technology ) disabled to make things fair ( enable it, raise the DDR3 frequency and unleash the dragon...5k+ scores, but that wouldn't be so nice or fair for a clock per clock comparison )



That is a BS comparison.

The BCLK is different than the Core clock of the Phe II which is shown to diminish the results of i7 cpus...  and the i7 is using less voltage.  If you matched the BCLK to the Phe II core clock then I bet the i7 would be a lot further ahead.


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 20, 2008)

Binge said:


> That is a BS comparison.
> 
> The BCLK is different than the Core clock of the Phe II which is shown to diminish the results of i7 cpus...  and the i7 is using less voltage.  If you matched the BCLK to the Phe II core clock then I bet the i7 would be ahead.



You seem to be a little bit confused mate.
First of all get your facts straight before calling someone's testing BS.

The BCLK a.k.a. base clock in simple is the main frequency that most parts on the board and the CPU base to reach their operating frequency with the help of the dividers/multipliers.
The BCLK isn't that much of a factor in terms of performance ( at least in a single socket LGA1366 platform ), and since we used a low HTT frequency on the Phenom II we decided to be fair and use a similarly low BCLK on the Core i7 as well.
HyperThreading is also disabled on the Core i7, because it would be unfair to set a battle between a CPU with virtually 8 cores against a 4 core CPU.

If you're looking for the max numbers and a "not so fair" comparison I can bombard you with 5k+ scores with a Core i7 easily, is that what you want ?

By the way, the Core i7 is already ahead, the top windows are from the Core i7 run and the bottom ones from the Phenom II.

If you didn't notice it's Compression Rate, higher rate = better.


----------



## KBD (Dec 20, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> It's the compression ( archiving ) test from WinRAR.
> It benchmarks the CPU in a real-life compression scenario and reports the average compression rates ( in KiloBytes per second ).



ahh, thnx. heard about it but never actually seen it. i use Winrar to archive stuff all the time though, lol

looks like Phenom 2 is not that far behind, yay for AMD!


----------



## Binge (Dec 20, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> If you didn't notice it's Compression Rate, higher rate = better.



If you didn't notice I said the higher BCLK would have given a better win for the i7.  From a personal buyer's standpoint, and an interested 3rd party I look at this and see BS.  I've done personal tests and BCLK does make a difference no matter how diminutive from situation to situation.  It's interesting that an i7 can match a Ph II while crippled with high multi/low voltage and beat it by a small margin, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from when I say they look more like different fruit now more than ever.


----------



## Raiderman (Dec 20, 2008)

Binge said:


> but I hope you can see where I'm coming from when I say they look more like different fruit now more than ever.



Like mango's and strawberries.... Thought  I would say something other than apples and oranges.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 20, 2008)

Dang i hope the Phenom II will be a sweet proc to own since the Core I7 is so fast. Hopefully AMD has got there sh^t together this time! and if not, i guess i better go for an Intel rig.


----------



## KBD (Dec 20, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> Dang i hope the Phenom II will be a sweet proc to own since the Core I7 is so fast. Hopefully AMD has got there sh^t together this time! and if not, i guess i better go for an Intel rig.



it is a sweet proc and by the looks of things AMD has made improvents to K10 but as far as getting their shit together i dont think so. First off, Deneb is arriving late in the game, it was really conceived to compete with Penryn but its getting late for that since i7 has been out already. Second, they need a new CPU architecture like ASAP, thats the only way the can compete with intel but it doesnt look like its gonna happen soon.


----------



## HTC (Dec 20, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> Dang i hope the Phenom II will be a sweet proc to own since the Core I7 is so fast. Hopefully AMD has got there sh^t together this time! and if not, i guess i better go for an Intel rig.



*Apparently*, AMD has lost the performance round *BUT* all isn't lost: if both price and power consumption are right, AMD can still make quite a profit, considering most PC owners go for low to mid range CPUs rather then high end CPUs, specially if you factor the cost of upgrading to an Deneb CPU VS an i7 one (board + ram).


----------



## Raiderman (Dec 20, 2008)

If its a matter of a few fps in games or a few seconds longer to encode a dvd, WGAS... Phenom II will be a great chip. I am loving the way it is scaling..

BTW, WGAS=who gives a sh*t


----------



## ascstinger (Dec 20, 2008)

Binge said:


> That is a BS comparison.
> 
> The BCLK is different than the Core clock of the Phe II which is shown to diminish the results of i7 cpus...  and the i7 is using less voltage.  If you matched the BCLK to the Phe II core clock then I bet the i7 would be a lot further ahead.



remember, the i7 has a stock bclk of 133, while the pII's HTT is 200. neither really has been bumped up in that respect, and 200bclk is near to the limit of what you can expect from an i7, not exactly something that would be used to compare 2 slightly bumped cpu's.

I'll be picking a 940 up as it becomes more available, mostly because I dont even begin to tap into my qx6850's potential, which makes it quite hard to hang onto when I could use the money elsewhere


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 20, 2008)

KBD said:


> ahh, thnx. heard about it but never actually seen it. i use Winrar to archive stuff all the time though, lol
> 
> looks like Phenom 2 is not that far behind, yay for AMD!



Well... if you turn on HyperThreading Technology on the Core i7 it scores 3243KB/s instead of 2289KB/s ( remember in the screenshot HT is off ).

That's a big difference, so no, AMD's Phenom II 9x0 isn't any close to Intel's Core i7, unless you're running your Core i7 with HyperThreading disabled.



Binge said:


> If you didn't notice I said the higher BCLK would have given a better win for the i7.



First some common sense:



ascstinger said:


> remember, the i7 has a stock bclk of 133, while the pII's HTT is 200. neither really has been bumped up in that respect



Thank you, finally somebody with common sense and understanding of the clock per clock testing process and scenario 



Binge said:


> If you didn't notice I said the higher BCLK would have given a better win for the i7.



Don't make me beat you with a stick of DDR3 RAM.
The gain from running a higher BCLK is the result of higher DDR3 clocks and higher QPI frequency, and not the BCLK itself.

I'm not your average joe in WinRAR testing, I've run, fiddled & tweaked that benchmark a million times 



Binge said:


> From a personal buyer's standpoint, and an interested 3rd party I look at this and see BS.  I've done personal tests and BCLK does make a difference no matter how diminutive from situation to situation.  It's interesting that an i7 can match a Ph II while crippled with high multi/low voltage and beat it by a small margin, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from when I say they look more like different fruit now more than ever.



First of all, if the CPU is stable at the given frequency, it doesn't matter if you feed it with 1.6V or 1.2V, the performance is and will be the same.
The performance gain from running a higher BCLK is originating from other stuff, check above this quote.



fullinfusion said:


> Dang i hope the Phenom II will be a sweet proc to own since the Core I7 is so fast. Hopefully AMD has got there sh^t together this time! and if not, i guess i better go for an Intel rig.



They're ( in most applications/scenarios ) faster than the Kentsfields ( Core 2 Quad series, Q6600, Q6700, QX6700, QX6800 ), and sometimes as fast as a Yorkfield ( Core 2 Quad series, Q9450, Q9550, Q9650, QX9650, QX9770 ), but the Yorkfield is faster in more tests than the Phenom II is.
The Core i7 is "untouchable" in nearly every single test ( with and without HyperThreading ).



KBD said:


> it is a sweet proc and by the looks of things AMD has made improvents to K10 but as far as getting their shit together i dont think so. First off, Deneb is arriving late in the game, it was really conceived to compete with Penryn but its getting late for that since i7 has been out already. Second, they need a new CPU architecture like ASAP, thats the only way the can compete with intel but it doesnt look like its gonna happen soon.



It's not a bad processor, and is a worthy upgrade for people with AM2 boards and older processors.
Unfortunately it ain't the big bang that we were expecting and hoping to see.
But they don't really need a new architecture to catch up or even surpass Intel, they just need to enhance or redesign some portions of the CPU.



HTC said:


> *Apparently*, AMD has lost the performance round *BUT* all isn't lost: if both price and power consumption are right, AMD can still make quite a profit, considering most PC owners go for low to mid range CPUs rather then high end CPUs, specially if you factor the cost of upgrading to an Deneb CPU VS an i7 one (board + ram).



It all depends on the pricing war with Intel's Penryn ( Core 2 Quad Q9450, Q9550, Q9650 ) processors to make the Phenom II a CPU worth choosing and upgrading to instead of going with Intel's LGA775 and a Core 2 Quad or the more expensive platform the LGA1366 & a Core i7.
On the other side, the launch of the LGA1156 "Lynnfield" processors isn't too far away, and there will be cheaper boards for the LGA1156 platform, and of course we already have some cheaper X58 LGA1366 boards on the way ( like the Asus P6T and a un-announced DFI DK board ).



ascstinger said:


> remember, the i7 has a stock bclk of 133, while the pII's HTT is 200. neither really has been bumped up in that respect, and 200bclk is near to the limit of what you can expect from an i7, not exactly something that would be used to compare 2 slightly bumped cpu's.


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 20, 2008)

That's the info I've been waiting for. I'm not sure how to feel this. I think I'll be waiting for more benchmarks, and compare it to the Q9450/Q9550 which is my price range. The new i7 is just beyond what I'm willing to spend on hardware, so it's basically irrelevant to me at this time. If it matches penryn clock for clock at a price tag of $275-$300, it seems to be an excellent performance to price product. It also seems that PII will give what PI never did, some real overclocking potential.


----------



## HTC (Dec 20, 2008)

Question: does the AMD CPU catch up to i7 when OCed @ same speed, or does the i7 get farther ahead?


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 20, 2008)

Hey BZ, lets see some higher clocks.


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 20, 2008)

HTC said:


> Question: does the AMD CPU catch up to i7 when OCed @ same speed, or does the i7 get farther ahead?



The tests shown above are taken with both CPUs ( the Core i7 and the Phenom II ) at the same frequency, 3100MHz.

And the answer is no, it cannot catch up with the Core i7.
Even if you clock the Phenom II at 4GHz, a Core i7 at 3.5GHz will still be faster.



Paulieg said:


> Hey BZ, lets see some higher clocks.



Sure


----------



## Steevo (Dec 20, 2008)

The Phenom 2 did 33 MB in two seconds more than the i7 at only 30Mb. How exactly is that a fair benchmark?

2.3 Mbps i7
2.2 Mbps Phenom



100K difference per second standardized. Not much, a simple miscache by the CPU will have greater effects, and well within what a normal variance is.


----------



## kid41212003 (Dec 20, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> They do overclock better than the first generation of Phenoms, the average 24/7 stable overclock on air with a Phenom II 920 / 940 will be at approx 3.75GHz, with some good chips reaching or even surpassing the 4GHz mark by a bit, and some "duds" stopping at 3.6GHz or so.





kid41212003 said:


> I expect Phenom II would match the Yorkfield performance clock vs clock or slower ~5%.
> I expect the Phenom II BE would reach 3.7GHz under air , and 3.5GHz for non-BE CPU, running 24/7.



My prediction of few days ago was quite close...


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 20, 2008)

Steevo said:


> The Phenom 2 did 33 MB in two seconds more than the i7 at only 30Mb. How exactly is that a fair benchmark?
> 
> 2.3 Mbps i7
> 2.2 Mbps Phenom
> ...



Allow me to educate you 
WinRAR displayes the "final" average compression rate ( resulting compression rate ), and the current compression rate is being updated every second after the "final" ( resulting ) rate is shown.
The run time before the resulting compression rate is displayed is lower than what you see in the screenshots, it took me some time to get the process paused.

From WinRAR's documentation ( in case you don't feel like trusting me  ):



			
				WinRAR's documentation said:
			
		

> This command generates random data, which contain specially introduced redundancy increasing load to processor and memory. Then data are passed through RAR compression and decompression algorithms and output of decompression algorithm is compared with source data. If any difference found, WinRAR reports "Errors found - Yes" in the command window. Also WinRAR displays a size of processed data and compression speed, current and resulting, in kilobytes per second. You may use the resulting speed value to compare RAR performance in different conditions. For example, "Benchmark" command may be helpful, when you need to choose a new computer and wish to know which one will compress data faster. Only the general compression algorithm in "Best" mode with 4096K dictionary is called, all additional filters and algorithms are disabled, so it measures performance of core RAR compression on worst case like data.
> 
> *Resulting speed is displayed when at least 10MB of source data are processed, collected statistics is enough to get an accurate result and current speed changes are near zero. After the resulting speed has been set, it is not changed more. Though source data are random, their redundancy level and other parameters are always the same. So this command will report practically the same current speed regardless of execution time, provided that system load is not changing.*


----------



## Steevo (Dec 20, 2008)

Practically and "is" are two different things.


Thats practically your child she is carrying, you had sex wither her, and she had sex with a few others.

VS

That IS your child she is carrying!


See, big difference.   How about a 200MB zip file extraction?


----------



## KBD (Dec 20, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> It's not a bad processor, and is a worthy upgrade for people with AM2 boards and older processors.
> Unfortunately it ain't the big bang that we were expecting and hoping to see.
> But they don't really need a new architecture to catch up or even surpass Intel, they just need to enhance or redesign some portions of the CPU.



yea, i never sed it was bad, i sed it was a sweet CPU and in fact i'm considering getting it myself when the new DDR3 boards come out as i much rather get an AMD then Intel. But i cant say i agree on the architecture, unless you can explain this. I mean K10b (or whatever they call the Deneb) is just a revised K10 which in turn is a revised K8. The latter has been around since 2003 and while AMD were on top they made few enhancements to it and their CPU development stagnated as they became overconfident. So basically no new architecture came to light since 2003. Now they are saying that they will have a new architecture based on 32nm in 2011. But its too late, intel will have the first 32nm CPUs by Q4 of 09 or Q1 of 10. The botton line is that AMD had nothing new since 2003 in terms of introducing a new architecture. Now what else can they do to the current architecture to be competitive? It seems like they already done all the tweaks they could and Deneb is the final result of these enhancements.


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 20, 2008)

Steevo said:


> Practically and "is" are two different things.
> 
> 
> Thats practically your child she is carrying, you had sex wither her, and she had sex with a few others.
> ...



You're clearly forgetting that:

1) The HyperThreading Technology is disabled, as a result you're seeing a small difference between the CPUs, while it can be way bigger.

2) Once again what you can't seem to understand is that:
Once I leave the Core i7 reach the 15s mark, it's already at 35 and sometimes at 36.

The extraction process is less dependent on the CPU, but the Core i7 is still faster.


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 20, 2008)

I think it is clear to most of us that i7 is just better in most, if not all applications than PII. Not speaking for anyone else, what I want to know is how it competes across the board with penryn, and how much better it is than PI in terms of overclocking and overall performance. I'd also love a screenie of BZ's 940 at 4.0ghz.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 20, 2008)

the thing about that i7 being faster in this test is still the HT actually working in one thing the same will happen with video editing etc but tests that don't utilize HT will be much more effective in showing the "true" differences between these tests


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 20, 2008)

The rumors regarding the CPUs that some overclockers had and the others AMD used in their demonstrations were cherry-picked samples is looking more and more possible now.

We have a total of 3 Phenom II's here, two 940s and one 920.
On air our best 940 did 3.89GHz "fully stable" ( 6 hours prime95 ), our second 940 did 3.77GHz "fully stable" ( 5 hours prime95 ) and the 920 stopped at 3.71GHz "fully stable" ( 6 hours prime95 ) and benchable at 3.95GHz, would rarely pass SuperPi 1M at 4G on air.

We're done testing the second 940 on LN2, nothing to write home about, 5.5GHz benchable.
We're going to take another break now and grab some more pizza to eat 
Then we're going to give the other 940 a try with LN2.

Another person that I know and trust has also tested another retail 940 ( he works with a hardware distributor ) on LN2 and maxxed out at 5.4GHz ( stable in 3D Marks, PC Marks, CineBench 10, SuperPi 32M, wPrime, etc ) and ran some light benches ( SuperPi 1M, Hexus PiFast ) at 5.52GHz.



cdawall said:


> the thing about that i7 being faster in this test is still the HT actually working in one thing the same will happen with video editing etc but tests that don't utilize HT will be much more effective in showing the "true" differences between these tests



If I for example run Video Editing and Encoding programs, and time is valuable to me, I'd pick a Core i7, it's simply faster, with and without HT.
Of course if the tasks that I'll be running benefit from HT I will enable it, any reason I should not ? 

In reality, if our budget allows us to buy the best CPU we grab it, if our budget is limited we take a look at our options, compare them in tasks that we usually do and pick the most suitable one.
We're about to receive some Octo-Core Bloomfields ( Core i7, 8 cores, 16 threads ) E.S. what is AMD going to do about it ? Hm... don't know to be honest.
Life ain't fair, and if you're going to compare something you use all of its features if they're beneficial to you


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 20, 2008)

I want some screenies!


----------



## HTC (Dec 20, 2008)

*New OC WR for Phenom II*

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=466047

Question: what's with those odd timings? Shouldn't it be like 5-5-5-15/18 or 6-6-6-18/21 or something?

More records here:

http://valid.canardpc.com/records.php


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 20, 2008)

I'll give you guys more screenies later on today or tomorrow.
We have two PC's on LN2 right now, and we can't waste time & nitrogen to find the screenies and upload them.

Gotta get back in action asap, rotation time


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 20, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> I'll give you guys more screenies later on today or tomorrow.
> We have two PC's on LN2 right now, and we can't waste time & nitrogen to find the screenies and upload them.
> 
> Gotta get back in action asap, rotation time



haha well thanks for the time and effors so far....and i didnt see anyone welcome you to tpu...so welcome


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 20, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> I'll give you guys more screenies later on today or tomorrow.
> We have two PC's on LN2 right now, and we can't waste time & nitrogen to find the screenies and upload them.
> 
> Gotta get back in action asap, rotation time



Hey, what was your vcore on the 3.89ghz on air run?


----------



## HTC (Dec 20, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> haha well thanks for the time and effors so far....a*nd i didnt see anyone welcome you to tpu...so welcome *



Dude: he's been registered since October of *2007* 

Stands to reason that he was welcomed then, no?


@ BenchZowner: many thanks for all your posts in this topic!


----------



## Raiderman (Dec 20, 2008)

HTC said:


> Dude: he's been registered since October of *2007*
> 
> Stands to reason that he was welcomed then, no?
> 
> ...



He's been a member since 07, but his first post was actually in this thread.


So a welcome is not out of order.


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 20, 2008)

HTC said:


> Dude: he's been registered since October of *2007*
> 
> Stands to reason that he was welcomed then, no?
> 
> ...



good point i was going by post count and what i saw in this thread......intresting i dont remember you bench and iv been here quite awhile


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 20, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> haha well thanks for the time and effors so far....and i didnt see anyone welcome you to tpu...so welcome



Thanks for the welcome 

Well it's not really a effort, we're just having fun here 

Just loaded a image to an old Maxtor 80GB IDE drive and run wPrime 1024m on a Q6600 ( Kentsfield ) at 3.1GHz to compare it with our run with the Phenom II 920.
I used a DDR2 board to make things more equal ( if that can be said, since Kentsfield is 2 generations old now for Intel, and the Phenom II is a "brand new" chip that's supposed to face the Core i7 or the Yorkfield at least, since it cannot take on Core i7 no matter what ).

The Kentsfield completed the 1024m run in 408.528s and the Phenom II in 390.539s.


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 20, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> Thanks for the welcome
> 
> Well it's not really a effort, we're just having fun here
> 
> ...



that isnt much of a diffirence.....could you do me a favor seeing as alot of Q6600's will do between 3.4-3.6 would you mind clocking that high and seeing if it can overtake the phenom?


----------



## HTC (Dec 20, 2008)

Raiderman said:


> He's been a member since 07, but his first post was actually in this thread.
> 
> 
> So a welcome is not out of order.



I stand corrected  

Have you dudes noticed the new record? 6120 MHz


----------



## ascstinger (Dec 20, 2008)

Paulieg said:


> Hey, what was your vcore on the 3.89ghz on air run?



I would be interested to know this as well. I have a loop that'll be cooling my PII, but I dont want to run a boatload of voltage just to hit the magic 4.0.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 20, 2008)

HTC said:


> http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=466047
> 
> Question: what's with those odd timings? Shouldn't it be like 5-5-5-15/18 or 6-6-6-18/21 or something?
> 
> ...



its an old tweak method i used it on my ancient s754 rig trying to push the bus speed that extra notch. you loose performance but it lessens the stress on the IMC


----------



## HTC (Dec 20, 2008)

ascstinger said:


> I would be interested to know this as well. I have a loop that'll be cooling my PII, but I dont want to run a boatload of voltage just to hit the magic 4.0.



While this question has merit, another much more important one begs to be asked: what temps on idle and full load with that speed and Vcore?


----------



## Raiderman (Dec 20, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> The Kentsfield completed the 1024m run in 408.528s and the Phenom II in 390.539s.



Just completed a run on my 9850@2809 mhz
1024M-432.6 secs.

Big improvement in the phenom II


----------



## Raiderman (Dec 20, 2008)

HTC said:


> While this question has merit, another much more important one begs to be asked: what temps on idle and full load with that speed and Vcore?



Yes I am interested in the temps also


----------



## cdawall (Dec 20, 2008)

since they used the old loose subtimings trick got me thinking are the IMC's on these chips weaker?


----------



## KBD (Dec 20, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> We have a total of 3 Phenom II's here, two 940s and one 920.
> On air our best 940 did 3.89GHz "fully stable" ( 6 hours prime95 ), our second 940 did 3.77GHz "fully stable" ( 5 hours prime95 ) and the 920 stopped at 3.71GHz "fully stable" ( 6 hours prime95 ) and benchable at 3.95GHz, would rarely pass SuperPi 1M at 4G on air.



yea, i'm also interested in the voltages and load/idle temps. Also, have u guys tried putting Phenom 2 on water and if you did how high did you get it? If you didnt would you care to make a guess whats the average frequency on water would be?


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 21, 2008)

Still rocking on LN2 ( got more LN2 delivered  ), I have to head back in soon some people left and our hands count is lower and the dewar is too heavy for 2 people to handle it and pour the LN2 into the thermos alone.

Some quickies from the review rig:
Q6600 @ 3.1GHz 3D Mark06 CPU Score = 4468 @ Vista x64
940 @ 3.1GHz 3D Mark06 CPU Score = 4225 @ Vista x64

Fully stable on air ( ThermalRight Ultra-120 ) at 3.7GHz with 1.458V ( DMM ).
Idle temp 28C/29C/28C/28C
Full Load temp 45C/44C/46C/45C
Room temp... unknown, we don't have any thermometer probe available ( all of them are "mounted" underneath the insulation on pots ), should be relatively cold with all this liquid nitrogen 

Phenom II 940 @ 3D Mark06 CPU Score @ 3.72GHz = 4998

Some good news... I have seen another shop advertise the CPUs on their site, and lists the 920 as available for purchase.
The NDA lift date is still 08/01/2009 - 09/01/2009 depending on your location on earth  as far as I've been told.
Don't know if these stores are going to sell them "illegally" before the NDA lifts, or AMD changed their plans and asked the resellers to start selling them and still hold the press with the NDA for the reviews, etc.

It certainly looks like that we shall be able to buy them before Christmas, and in other places just 2 days after Christmas.

I might post again later on.

p.s.1. Nobody brought any watercooling parts or setup with him here, so no we didn't get a chance to put them under water.
I'd say depending on your luck of draw you shall be stable somewhere in between 3.8GHz and 4.1GHz with a decent water cooling setup.
Note that the 4.1GHz is going to be tough to get, unless you're a very lucky sod 

p.s.2. Solaris17: The average Q6600 G0 provided that you have some decent air cooling can hit something between 3.7GHz and 3.8GHz fully stable, and that is enough to beat a Phenom II @ 3.1GHz if that's what you mean.
If we max out two average CPUs, the Q6600 will be at 3.75GHz and the Phenom II at 3.7GHz, and the Phenom will be faster than the Q6600 in most applications.


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 21, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> Still rocking on LN2 ( got more LN2 delivered  ), I have to head back in soon some people left and our hands count is lower and the dewar is too heavy for 2 people to handle it and pour the LN2 into the thermos alone.
> 
> Some quickies from the review rig:
> Q6600 @ 3.1GHz 3D Mark06 CPU Score = 4468 @ Vista x64
> ...



Thanks for the numbers. Hey, would any of those sites selling the PII be in the US?


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 21, 2008)

Paulieg said:


> Thanks for the numbers. Hey, would any of those sites selling the PII be in the US?



Nope.
I'm currently in Greece, Europe and the two sites that have the CPUs on sale are local ( Greek ).
I've also seen 2 sites listing the CPUs for pre-order for the 27th of Dec as well.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 21, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> Nope.
> I'm currently in Greece, Europe and the two sites that have the CPUs on sale are local ( Greek ).
> I've also seen 2 sites listing the CPUs for pre-order for the 27th of Dec as well.


would ya mind linking those sites mate?


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 21, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> Still rocking on LN2 ( got more LN2 delivered  ), I have to head back in soon some people left and our hands count is lower and the dewar is too heavy for 2 people to handle it and pour the LN2 into the thermos alone.
> 
> Some quickies from the review rig:
> Q6600 @ 3.1GHz 3D Mark06 CPU Score = 4468 @ Vista x64
> ...




thanks apprecioate the statistics.


----------



## 3dsage (Dec 21, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> would ya mind linking those sites mate?



IDK but this site in greece looks like its about to put the x4 920 up for grabs.
http://www.wikio.co.uk/guide/amd-review-5978-5175-page2-sort0.html?tf25=Socket+AM2+


----------



## TheGoat Eater (Dec 21, 2008)

Ok...OK... here is my 940





well under the Domino that is :


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 21, 2008)

How is that DFI 790FX clocking it man? I am gonna buy one soon.


----------



## TheGoat Eater (Dec 21, 2008)

ran up past 240 - while my RAM was @ 1300~ or so  (650) I didn't pay attention as I was focused on the RAM which I ended up going to about 1340...


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 21, 2008)

Would you recommend it for a Phenom II then?


----------



## TheGoat Eater (Dec 21, 2008)

yeah I guess.... IDK as I am not an AMD guy and have spent more time with Intel...


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 21, 2008)

fullinfusion said:


> would ya mind linking those sites mate?



I would but I just noticed that they removed the CPUs from the list 
The AMD representatives in Greece must have noticed that and asked them to remove them.
There's another shop now listing the Phenom II 920 & 940 on their site, indicating that they don't have them in stock, but still list the prices and allow you to pre-order them.

Phenom II 920 - 210€ ( VAT 19% inc. )
Phenom II 940 - 247€ ( VAT 19% inc. )

The first shops that listed them were the biggest shops here, and that makes it easy for the distributor to find them if they list something that they're not supposed to show.
Their prices were a bit higher than the linked site, the linked site is a relatively new and small shop that wants to attract more customers by selling the stuff cheaper than the rest.

No matter what, I'm quite sure ( and insured by a friend who's working for one of the big shops ) that they'll start selling the Phenom II's on the 27th


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 21, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> I would but I just noticed that they removed the CPUs from the list
> The AMD representatives in Greece must have noticed that and asked them to remove them.
> There's another shop now listing the Phenom II 920 & 940 on their site, indicating that they don't have them in stock, but still list the prices and allow you to pre-order them.
> 
> ...



How much is that with out VAT? Thats 350$ for the 940 and 300$ for 920 with those prices :shadedshu shame..


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 21, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> How much is that with out VAT? Thats 350$ for the 940 and 300$ for 920 with those prices :shadedshu shame..



approx 207.5 for the 940, and 176.5 for the 920.


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 21, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> approx 207.5 for the 940, and 176.5 for the 920.



Oh thats better.. 277$, probably will be 250-300$ at launch.


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 21, 2008)

Here's a picture from the session, sorry for the quality, it's not my cellphone


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 22, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> Here's a picture from the session, sorry for the quality, it's not my cellphone



Sweet, any more results for us? I'll have some screenies on a 945 BE ES chip in about a week. Can't wait to get her on water.


----------



## HTC (Dec 22, 2008)

*WR ... again ...*

6221.19 MHz

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=467243


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 22, 2008)

Anyone wanna hook a brotha up with one of them bad boys


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 22, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Anyone wanna hook a brotha up with one of them bad boys



PM me.


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 22, 2008)

Hey folks 
I'm at my place now and waiting for FedEx to deliver a package and then I'll hit the road and go to the "lab" to get the data off the HDDs from the benching session.

@HTC:
There's already a 6.31GHz screenshot/validation ( not published online yet ), but unfortunately it looks like there will be only a few chips that can do over 5.6GHz, and even less over 6GHz.


----------



## HTC (Dec 22, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> Hey folks
> I'm at my place now and waiting for FedEx to deliver a package and then I'll hit the road and go to the "lab" to get the data off the HDDs from the benching session.
> 
> @HTC:
> There's already a 6.31GHz screenshot/validation ( not published online yet ), but unfortunately it looks like there will be only a few chips that can do over 5.6GHz, and even less over 6GHz.



Thanks for the info, dude!

One thing i'd like to point out is that you don't have to have ridiculous good RAM to have a good OC because the relationship between proc speed and RAM speed is more independent: that also causes the i7 to speed away when OCed to the same speed as Phenom II.

One advantage of this for Phenom II: you can OC higher while keeping your costs down because you can used less quality RAM and still get a good OC, unlike i7.


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 22, 2008)

HTC said:


> Thanks for the info, dude!



You're welcome 
If I have something to share and have nothing preventing me from doing it, I can't find a reason why I shouldn't share the info 
This is one of the reasons such communities exist.



HTC said:


> One thing i'd like to point out is that you don't have to have ridiculous good RAM to have a good OC because the relationship between proc speed and RAM speed is more independent: that also causes the i7 to speed away when OCed to the same speed as Phenom II.



You can use some bulky value RAM with both platforms nowadays.
Of course if you compare the capacities DDR2 is still a bit cheaper than DDR3, but that is going to change in the forthcoming months.
You can do your thing with a cheap DDR2 kit and with one of the cheapest DDR3 kits ( a DDR3-1333 kit ).
Cheap or not so cheap, you can always find some "gems" without emptying your pockets, as long as you know what to look for


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 22, 2008)

BenchZowner said:


> You're clearly forgetting that:
> 
> 1) The HyperThreading Technology is disabled, as a result you're seeing a small difference between the CPUs, while it can be way bigger.
> 
> ...



Decent performance in WinRAR without even trying ?





Edit: 
F*, I'm an idiot, didn't see it coming, I got the CPU-z window covered 
The CPU Frequency in this screenshot is 3.4GHz.


----------



## KBD (Dec 22, 2008)

why does the i7 have 2 L1 caches? i never noticed that before. congrats on the board, btw, that foxconn is sweet, if i go i7 thats what i'm getting.


----------



## Solaris17 (Dec 22, 2008)

KBD said:


> why does the i7 have 2 L1 caches? i never noticed that before. congrats on the board, btw, that foxconn is sweet, if i go i7 thats what i'm getting.



data

cache.


----------



## KBD (Dec 22, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> data
> 
> cache.



that still doesnt tell me anything, lol


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 23, 2008)

Hey BZ, any more benches for us?


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 23, 2008)

Paulieg said:


> Hey BZ, any more benches for us?



I have a HDD here with results, but first I have to test a new beta BIOS for the BloodRage and get some things done because the BloodRage review is in top priority at the moment and I need to get it out ASAP and without reducing the details or the quality of the review.

Let me get some things done and then I'll hook the HDD up and grab some scores & screenshots.

As of tomorrow I'll more than likely have more stuff to share and more CPUs to test and overclock ( the shops are selling the CPUs now  ).


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 25, 2008)

Sorry for not dropping by earlier, but I've got some good news for you guys.
The first part of the review series for the Phenom II's is now online on HWbox.gr ( a Greek hardware reviews website + forum ).
The numbers in the charts are universal, don't know if Google translation or systran can output some readable text, but you can try.

Phenom II Series Reviews - Part 1

The tests were done with the CPUs at stock frequencies.


----------



## kid41212003 (Dec 25, 2008)

Woop! At last a detail benchmarks!

EDIT: I was expecting 1 more option for Core i7, HT off.


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 25, 2008)

We'll include those on the next parts, part II and part III


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 25, 2008)

It really looks like PII is performing on par with Q9550/Q9650. Which for the price, is quite good.


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 26, 2008)

Review updated, there's a new page with a x264 compression benchmark.


----------



## KBD (Dec 26, 2008)

Paulieg said:


> It really looks like PII is performing on par with Q9550/Q9650. Which for the price, is quite good.



which is still awesome and just i what expected


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 27, 2008)

My 945 ES should be here today, with any luck. I'm hoping and keeping my fingers crossed.


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 31, 2008)

The review has been updated and there are some new benches added.
The clock per clock reviews ( Phenom I vs Phenom II @ 3GHz ) and ( Phenom II vs Q6600 vs Q9450 vs i7 @ 3.7GHz ) shall be ready soon.

Make sure you check the thread in the AMD section @ XtremeSystems.org there are 5 charts from the forthcoming reviews there  [ page 6 currently ]


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 31, 2008)

KBD said:


> why does the i7 have 2 L1 caches? i never noticed that before. congrats on the board, btw, that foxconn is sweet, if i go i7 thats what i'm getting.



It has 2 Caches Like the AMD XP CPU does Instruction and Data. usually Described as L1D and L1I at least thats how its sounding.

http://translate.google.com/transla...Ft%3D3189&hl=en&rls=SNCA,SNCA:2008-15,SNCA:en

there is the current link that BenchZowner provided that has been translated into English Via Google


----------



## Polarman (Dec 31, 2008)

Seems like the NDA is not being apply in his case. Gratz for an early preview.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Dec 31, 2008)

I reckon Paul didnt get his P2. Welcome B and thanks for all this useful Info. Its been a minute since I checked this thread out.


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 31, 2008)

Phenom I vs Phenom II @ 3GHz both






Phenom II vs Q6600 vs Q9450 vs i7 @ 3.7GHz all


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 31, 2008)

So if you got a decent Agena, PII isn't really worth it?


----------



## BenchZowner (Dec 31, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> So if you got a decent Agena, PII isn't really worth it?



Don't rush into conclusions 
I chose to show these benchmarks to show you that sometimes Phenom II enjoys a healthy lead over its predecessor, and sometimes they're pretty much performing equally.

The full clock per clock review should be up today or tomorrow, and there are plenty of charts for you to check out and judge on whether the Phenom II is a worthy upgrade or not over a Phenom I.


----------



## r9 (Dec 31, 2008)

If you agree with AMD logic of what is needed what is not is needed and what is sufficient.
AMD are telling us that no one needs i7, that AMD does the job done which is true also true is that Q6600 is doing the job and E5200 50$ cpu is doing the job naturaly OC to 4 GHz.
AMD is trying to win this by lowering price that is not way to go.
Cost of manufacturing PII is no less than producing i7 so there is no excuse in performance vise.
What AMD did with 48XX vs 260/280 series 256bit vs 512bit and size 1xdie vs 2.5xdie that is planed lower priced products and Phenom I and II are forced not enough power thing. 
look at this way if Intel wanted to kill AMD they need to do just one thing to match the price which they can like I said the cost to produce Phenom is no lower than i7. 
I don`t have nothing against AMD just this is hard truth. Every non AMD fan can see this it is not  rocket sience.


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 31, 2008)

Well I am pretty damn happy with my 9750 at 2.8ghz. Definitely better than my e7200 at 4ghz in most games, Supreme Commander and Source Engine Games I see the biggest gains.


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 31, 2008)

WarEagleAU said:


> I reckon Paul didnt get his P2. Welcome B and thanks for all this useful Info. Its been a minute since I checked this thread out.



It's running late due to the holidays. I'll cross my fingers for today.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Dec 31, 2008)

Yeah same with my GPU and Kuma


----------



## Raiderman (Dec 31, 2008)

r9 said:


> If you agree with AMD logic of what is needed what is not is needed and what is sufficient.
> AMD are telling us that no one needs i7, that AMD does the job done which is true also true is that Q6600 is doing the job and E5200 50$ cpu is doing the job naturaly OC to 4 GHz.
> AMD is trying to win this by lowering price that is not way to go.
> Cost of manufacturing PII is no less than producing i7 so there is no excuse in performance vise.
> ...




If I not mistaken the PII die size is considerably smaller than that of the i7, therefore cheaper to manufacture. I believe the i7 is around 263mm, PII@ 243mm.


----------



## KBD (Dec 31, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Well I am pretty damn happy with my 9750 at 2.8ghz. Definitely better than my e7200 at 4ghz in most games, Supreme Commander and Source Engine Games I see the biggest gains.



i think that has a lot to do with the fact the 9750 is a quad and e7200 is a dual. Supreme Commander benefits from 4 cores so the 9750 has an advatage over a dual. If you were to compare your 9750 to a q6600 or a q9450 i'm sure intel will take the lead due to having a superior architecture. But with Phenom 2 that will change, now it will be on par with 775 intel quads.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Dec 31, 2008)

Id like to see AMD with an Architectural change before 2011. They cant rest on their laurels. Im sure P2 will be pretty damn decent from the recent reviews by Bench, but Im hoping their next processor will be a bit different.


----------



## KBD (Dec 31, 2008)

WarEagleAU said:


> Id like to see AMD with an Architectural change before 2011. They cant rest on their laurels. Im sure P2 will be pretty damn decent from the recent reviews by Bench, but Im hoping their next processor will be a bit different.



i'm praying it will come sooner as well. Hopefully the situation will improve for AMD and they will release it ahead of the 2011 schedule. But this world recession is just making things that much more difficult for them and they arent doing that great to begin with, thats what has me worried.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Dec 31, 2008)

YEah I see your point. Its hard to imagine the US economy and the housing market causing such global problems too. Maybe something good happens in the new year with Obama.


----------



## BenchZowner (Jan 3, 2009)

Here's the last teaser for now, the clock per clock review should be online in 12 hours or so.

All CPUs clocked at 3.7GHz


----------



## KBD (Jan 3, 2009)

thnx a lot for posting that!

Pretty much expected these results. Interestingly, in UT3 all CPUs performed nearly identical. I guess that game is not multhi-threaded and the Bloomfield with its HT doesnt make any impact at all.


----------



## BenchZowner (Jan 3, 2009)

KBD said:


> thnx a lot for posting that!
> 
> Pretty much expected these results. Interestingly, in UT3 all CPUs performed nearly identical. I guess that game is not multhi-threaded and the Bloomfield with its HT doesnt make any impact at all.



It is Multi-Threaded, it's the law of physics ( or programming, take it any way you want ).
With the games at high resolutions ALONG with Max details and some AA/AF levels become GPU Limited, and no CPU can help you get better frame rates.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jan 3, 2009)

Wow, not bad at all. This is what the phenom 1 should have been from the get go. Very impressive.


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 3, 2009)

Hey BZ. Finally got my 945BE. I'll post some benchmarks tonight.


----------



## KBD (Jan 3, 2009)

BenchZowner said:


> It is Multi-Threaded, it's the law of physics ( or programming, take it any way you want ).
> With the games at high resolutions ALONG with Max details and some AA/AF levels become GPU Limited, and no CPU can help you get better frame rates.



right, of course, though i didnt know the game was multithreaded. Still very impressed with Phenom 2 so far. I think gamers should definately consider it. But those doing intesnsive tasks should go with i7.


----------



## BenchZowner (Jan 3, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> Hey BZ. Finally got my 945BE. I'll post some benchmarks tonight.



Overclock on first boot please  
Hope it does well


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 4, 2009)

Old benchmark was showing the model numbers for Phenom II 920/940, Core i7 920/940, ect..., with TB on or off.

New benchmarks:
Only CPU code name, no model #, and this time it's HT On or Off.

It makes thing a lil hard to compare to old benchmarks.

It's kinda confusing, and not really "reliable".

Oh well, thanks for your affords.


----------



## J-Man (Jan 4, 2009)

Very nice.


----------



## BenchZowner (Jan 4, 2009)

kid41212003 said:


> Old benchmark was showing the model numbers for Phenom II 920/940, Core i7 920/940, ect..., with TB on or off.
> 
> New benchmarks:
> Only CPU code name, no model #, and this time it's HT On or Off.
> ...



The Code Names are just what you need to compare the numbers on the new benchmarks.

Why ?
Because regardless of the model used the performance is the same due to the same specifications and the same operating frequency.
In the above charts each processor is clocked at 3.7GHz.
Turbo is obviously off, since this is a clock per clock ( meaning: each processor is running at the exact same operating frequency with the rest ).
The Phenom II 920 and the Phenom II 940 when both are clocked at 3.7GHz will perform equally.
The same applies to the Core 2 Quads 65nm ( Kentsfield ) and 45nm ( Yorkfield ) and the Core i7s ( Bloomfield ) and the Phenoms I ( Agena ) & II ( Deneb ).
We used the same CPUs from the first review.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 4, 2009)

BenchZowner said:


> In the above charts each processor is clocked at 3.7GHz.


My mistakes .


----------



## trickson (Jan 4, 2009)

Well the E8600 has hit 6.6GHz !! Take a look . now this just takes all the steam out of AMD breaking the 6GHz mark with a C2D !!! 
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=212255

here as well .
http://www.zedobench.com/v2/


----------



## Steevo (Jan 4, 2009)

trickson said:


> Well the E8600 has hit 6.6GHz !! Take a look . now this just takes all the steam out of AMD breaking the 6GHz mark with a C2D !!!
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=212255
> 
> here as well .
> http://www.zedobench.com/v2/



Wow, two less cores, and a very hand picked chip.


----------



## trickson (Jan 4, 2009)

Steevo said:


> Wow, two less cores, and a very hand picked chip.



Yeah and the AMD engineering sample isn't hand pick ???


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jan 4, 2009)

Im sure it is, but its helluva alot harder for AMD and Intel to hit them records with 4 cores than it is for them both to do it with 2. Well done on the E8600 hitting 6.6 though, that is awesome.


----------



## HTC (Jan 4, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> Im sure it is, but its helluva alot harder for AMD and Intel to hit them records with 4 cores than it is for them both to do it with 2. *Well done on eht E8600 hitting 6.6 though, that is awesome.*



You're a bit ill-informed, dude: current E8600 record is a tad bit higher then that.

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=452621


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jan 4, 2009)

Not ill informed, I havent seen it myself so to me 6.6ghz is impressive and I congratulated them.


----------



## trickson (Jan 4, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> Not ill informed, I havent seen it myself so to me 6.6ghz is impressive and I congratulated them.



Yeah I have yet to see any AMD dual core CPU reach this mark . Sure I will trough AMD a bone and say great job on reaching 6.0GHz on the PII but come on even every day users are not going to get that and the i7 Chip is giving every day users 5.5 GHz ...


----------



## Steevo (Jan 4, 2009)

trickson said:


> Yeah I have yet to see any AMD dual core CPU reach this mark . Sure I will trough AMD a bone and say great job on reaching 6.0GHz on the PII but come on even every day users are not going to get that and the i7 Chip is giving every day users 5.5 GHz ...



I don't know everyday users had LN2 pots on 24/7 

Yes, the (old) dual core Athalons have never reached this speed as they had a cold bug, and the hot running prescott didn't but was much less clock efficient. Lets compare tech from the same series and era.


For the record a user here was running 3.8Ghz as a stable overclock on a Phenom 2 at 1.4 vcore and low temps as there is little leakage, mebey it is not as fast at some tasks, but this isn't a hand picked chip, and it isn't a suicide run. most i7 users are severly voltage limited.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 4, 2009)

KBD said:


> thnx a lot for posting that!
> 
> Pretty much expected these results. Interestingly, in UT3 all CPUs performed nearly identical. I guess that game is not multhi-threaded and the Bloomfield with its HT doesnt make any impact at all.



take Coders to release a Patch for game


----------



## Steevo (Jan 4, 2009)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115200


http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3404525&postcount=97



VS



$299 pricing for a AMD quad 940 that will run at 4Ghz on a normal chip at MUCH lower temps giving more heardroom for experianced overclockers?


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jan 4, 2009)

@Trickson this is true, but as Steevo said, that kind of high is usually TEC/DICE/LN2

If my Phenom 2 (When I get it) its above 3.3 hell Ill be happy. Im hoping it will though they should clock well. I dont need 4.0ghz. If I could get it, Id probably crap myself.


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 4, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> @Trickson this is true, but as Steevo said, that kind of high is usually TEC/DICE/LN2
> 
> If my Phenom 2 (When I get it) its above 3.3 hell Ill be happy. Im hoping it will though they should clock well. I dont need 4.0ghz. If I could get it, Id probably crap myself.


*passes the tissue paper* i bet WE you can get 3.8 easy..... I placed an order with my local shop already for the P II 940


----------



## Drizzt5 (Jan 4, 2009)

If the best you can get with the P2 is 3.3 I will be disappointed. I'm hoping for 4ghz at least for air cooled suicide runs. And we have seen the engineering samples do this, hopefully the retail are close.


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 4, 2009)

Drizzt5 said:


> If the best you can get with the P2 is 3.3 I will be disappointed. I'm hoping for 4ghz at least for air cooled suicide runs. And we have seen the engineering samples do this, hopefully the retail are close.


shit i just passed 1.70v through this 9850 Phenom and idle i was sitting 42c lol.... i hope 45nm will be way cooler lol


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jan 4, 2009)

Im sure I could get 3.3 easy. Im not wanting to push for max's 24/7 on mine. I am excited about the potential though. Almost makes me want to buy an air cooler (cuz when I go water, my brothers cpu is getting my xigmatek) and try it out that way. *takes the TP from Fullin* yeah Ill probably need that


----------



## fullinfusion (Jan 5, 2009)

WarEagleAU said:


> Im sure I could get 3.3 easy. Im not wanting to push for max's 24/7 on mine. I am excited about the potential though. Almost makes me want to buy an air cooler (cuz when I go water, my brothers cpu is getting my xigmatek) and try it out that way. *takes the TP from Fullin* yeah Ill probably need that


Lol bro it's all good !!!!!! Clock baby CLOCK!!!!!!


----------



## frankenchrist (Jan 6, 2009)

fullinfusion said:


> shit i just passed 1.70v through this 9850 Phenom and idle i was sitting 42c lol.... i hope 45nm will be way cooler lol



I actually found my Phenom x4 to be wayy cooler than my QX This thing runs hella hot!


----------



## BenchZowner (Jan 6, 2009)

Here's the Clock Per Clock review comparing the Phenom I vs the Phenom II at 3GHz and the Phenom II with the Core 2 Quads ( 45nm & 65nm ) and the Core i7 at 3.7GHz


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jan 6, 2009)

I am impressed with some of the numbers and some of the others are not like I expected.


----------



## trickson (Jan 6, 2009)

BenchZowner said:


> Here's the Clock Per Clock review comparing the Phenom I vs the Phenom II at 3GHz and the Phenom II with the Core 2 Quads ( 45nm & 65nm ) and the Core i7 at 3.7GHz



Well I can not read Russian so that means nothing to me .


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 6, 2009)

trickson said:


> Well I can not read Russian so that means nothing to me .



English version. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=el&tl=en&u=http://www.hwbox.gr/showthread.php?t=3253


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 6, 2009)

Remember guys, I had 3.8 in less than a day of testing, on a board I didn't know too well. My new Asus 78-T comes tomorrow, and I think by the weekend everyone will have a better idea of what PII is capable of.


----------

