# Phenom II (Vs. i7 and C2Q) gaming benchmarks



## Sonido (Dec 23, 2008)

This is quite interesting. pcgameshardware.com has done some gaming benchmarks with these CPU's. I'm quite impressed with Deneb's performances. It almost matches the i7's 940 scores! It's a Phenom II 940 vs. i7 940 vs. C2Q 9550. The most interesting thing, however, is not how well Phenom II scales against i7's 940, but how C2Q 9550 scales with i7's 940. 

*Note*: The Intel platform is on DDR3, while the AMD is on DDR2. Also, this Phenom II is an ES. The final product's scores could be totally different (good or bad).







The first thing I noticed here was how great the Phenom II works here. I also noticed that the i7 didn't have that much of lead against it's last gen cousin.






In regards to the results above, I would say the same. It seems that if you currently have a C2Q there's really no need for an upgrade just yet. Unless, you're Fit.  Hardware Junkie's UNITE!






Here is where you can see Intel's QPI really come into play. Even though the Phenom II is doing extremely well, Intel's interface of 6.4 GHz is really showing it's potential. HyperTransport 3.1 has already been ratified. It provides 3.2 GHz (6.4 Bi-directional) with performance pretty much even with QPI. (I will make a new post for this info, as it is quite interesting for those who want to upgrade to AM3.)






Again, Intel's QPI mixed in with DDR3 shows it's power, but Phenom II is doing incredibly well. I'm glad to say AMD has finally gotten off their asses, even if it's a bit late.






I believe this is totally due to the DDR3 setup. As even the C2Q beats out the i7's current flagship the 940. (There isn't an incredible amount of a lead by the i7 to begin with, but it is enough to edge out the C2Q gen.)

Overall, I would say that the up and coming Phenom II will most certainly be one to look out for, being able to hold it's own against Intel's current flagship and proven C2Q. The Intel i7 940 is looking to be a beast, boasting an incredible 6.4 GHz link. If you have a C2Q 9000 series CPU, you can hold out until Sandy Bridge is out by 2H-3Q '09, or just go AMD 

Don't forget to leave some thanks.


----------



## J-Man (Dec 23, 2008)

The new line of AMD's still suck. Intel are just greatness.


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 23, 2008)

Wow that is amazing. Considering how much cheaper an AMD platform is compared to an i7 platform. I am so glad I just ordered a DFI 790GX


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Dec 23, 2008)

this is good news hope this isn't smeared like some of the other benchies out there, i'm really looking forward to the p2 940 i want one reall bad lol

although they're running the benches in some of these at higher res, could skew the bench given a gpu possible bottleneck, but hey whatever the numbers look good even at high res, it shows some competition with a much lower pricetag hopefully.


----------



## Sonido (Dec 23, 2008)

J-Man said:


> The new line of AMD's still suck. Intel are just greatness.



Apparently, I should of put up more hi-res images as you cannot see the potential of the Phenom II's. I'm not saying it will trump the i7's, in fact I think both are great. But, like I said, there's no point in upgrading from a Q9xxx to a current i7. I just think Deneb is what will bring AMD from the slums. Hopefully, this won't turn out to be another Barcelona. 



ShadowFold said:


> Wow that is amazing. Considering how much cheaper an AMD platform is compared to an i7 platform. I am so glad I just ordered a DFI 790GX



Sweet! How much did it run out? I'm going AM3 probably in 2H of '09. My rig is still going strong.


----------



## erocker (Dec 23, 2008)

J-Man said:


> The new line of AMD's still suck. Intel are just greatness.



Don't make empty comments such as this.  Did you even look at the graphs?  Don't you find it suprising that PII actually beats a Core i7 with Crysis?!!


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 23, 2008)

Sonido said:


> Sweet! How much did it run out? I'm going AM3 probably in 2H of '09. My rig is still going strong.



157$ after shipping. Got a DFI LanParty Dark 790GX. I would go AM3 but I don't think I could afford a board+DDR3.


----------



## kid41212003 (Dec 23, 2008)

I will wait for heavily multi-threaded games, and application before I say anything.

Maybe the upcoming game Empire Total Wars.


----------



## J-Man (Dec 23, 2008)

erocker said:


> Don't make empty comments such as this.  Did you even look at the graphs?  Don't you find it suprising that PII actually beats a Core i7 with Crysis?!!


 I took a look but only a LITTLE better then the 920 and only 1-2 frames better then my Q9550. Seems my current quad will be fine for a while and still be getting the same frames as a 920/Phenom X4


----------



## Wile E (Dec 23, 2008)

erocker said:


> Don't make empty comments such as this.  Did you even look at the graphs?  Don't you find it suprising that PII actually beats a Core i7 with Crysis?!!



I didn't find it surprising. For multithreaded things that can't use 8 cores, the HT actually makes it slower. It ends up mixing together Virtual cores with physical ones, due to the way Windows assigns the cores. Turn off HT, and the results are very different.


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 23, 2008)

Actually I'm quite amazed with these results. Can't wait to get that 945 BE ES...just a few more days.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Dec 23, 2008)

J-Man said:


> I took a look but only a LITTLE better then the 920 and only 1-2 frames better then my Q9550. Seems my current quad will be fine for a while and still be getting the same frames as a 920/Phenom X4



For the same price, so going by your first statement that would make me think anything in that price range sucks, including your proc?


----------



## CDdude55 (Dec 23, 2008)

Only a couple of frames apart, still happy to see AMD competing, nothing earth shattering tho still happy with my QX6700 for gaming.

Core 2's should still be smoking for gaming for years to come.


----------



## Binge (Dec 23, 2008)

Are these being dug up again!?  Seriously I swear I've seen them before and just like before I want to ask the question:

How is it impressive when the clocks are different?  Are we supposed to be impressed by stock procs?


----------



## Sonido (Dec 23, 2008)

erocker said:


> Don't make empty comments such as this.  Did you even look at the graphs?  Don't you find it suprising that PII actually beats a Core i7 with Crysis?!!



He's trying to fight the Bat! His relation to this thread is way off. I wanna know where did the i7's 920 come from..



ShadowFold said:


> 157$ after shipping. Got a DFI LanParty Dark 790GX. I would go AM3 but I don't think I could afford a board+DDR3.



DDR3 is going to go down coming the end of this month. Since DDR2 is becoming cheaper and cheaper, DDR3 has to compete by lowering it's prices as well. Not to mention that DDR3 is becoming mainstream.



kid41212003 said:


> I will wait for heavily multi-threaded games, and application before I say anything.
> 
> Maybe the upcoming game Empire Total Wars.



Current games are barely doing multiprocessing; And the ones that do are only two threads. I doubt we will see that many games that utilize 4 threads, not to mention 8.



J-Man said:


> I took a look but only a LITTLE better then the 920 and only 1-2 frames better then my Q9550. Seems my current quad will be fine for a while and still be getting the same frames as a 920/Phenom X4



I see what you are trying to say, but  that comment was totally unnecessary. It barely had any relation to what I posted.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Dec 23, 2008)

Binge said:


> How is it impressive when the clocks are different?  Are we supposed to be impressed by stock procs?



Because not everyone OC's, I know a lot of gamers who just leave their proc's and videocards as they sit. If you buy something good off the bat, the OC will help, but isn't needed by all to get 3-4 fps more.


----------



## platinumyahoo (Dec 23, 2008)

Iv always preferred AMD, but I like having beastly setup and AMD couldint offer that after the rapeage of C2D and C2Q. This P2 940 is competing with a $500 intel processor! price/performance AMD will beat Intel this gen. (at least for a lil) because you will now get an unlocked multiplier CPU at 1/3 price of intel's unlocked multiplier, with reasonable competition.

AMD(ATi) beat nVidia in cards (finally) and they will beat intel for processors (hopefully)


----------



## Sonido (Dec 23, 2008)

Binge said:


> Are these being dug up again!?  Seriously I swear I've seen them before and just like before I want to ask the question:
> 
> How is it impressive when the clocks are different?  Are we supposed to be impressed by stock procs?



Yes and no--these speeds were chosen by AMD and Intel as optimal frequencies for these processors (not to say just in terms of performance and TDP... but things like future expansion of the line main, low, and high end versions as well). These processors are pretty much at the same freq (.07 MHz isn't going to do squat) and performing closely. You are correct, Binge. Scaling might be a different thing, but, you've seen the speeds Phenom II can hit. Even if it scales worst than i7's, it can hit a higher freq to hopefully match it.


----------



## platinumyahoo (Dec 23, 2008)

Paulieg said:


> Actually I'm quite amazed with these results. Can't wait to get that 945 BE ES...just a few more days.



http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1376758
someone is selling one for $250


----------



## zithe (Dec 23, 2008)

erocker said:


> Don't make empty comments such as this.  Did you even look at the graphs?  Don't you find it suprising that PII actually beats a Core i7 with Crysis?!!



I find it amazing that the old phenom did, too...


----------



## Sonido (Dec 23, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I didn't find it surprising. For multithreaded things that can't use 8 cores, the HT actually makes it slower. It ends up mixing together Virtual cores with physical ones, due to the way Windows assigns the cores. Turn off HT, and the results are very different.



Not entirely false, but there's no actual virtual core. It's the extra ALU Intel thinks is really needed. With it off, you might actually get the same performance results. The thing is that, if Windows assigns 4 ALU's from two cores instead of one from each one, you can get a bottleneck. According to Intel, the redesign of HT with backside fixed that issue.


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 23, 2008)

OK, I'm going AMD here, but don't kid yourself people. The PII is not a i7 killer. It will match Penryn, or maybe slightly better. It will be a good VALUE compared to Intel. Oh, and lets not turn this thread into a fanboy flame war. Let's just be happy that maybe...just maybe, AMD offered a processor worth buying this generation.


----------



## Binge (Dec 23, 2008)

1Kurgan1 said:


> Because not everyone OC's, I know a lot of gamers who just leave their proc's and videocards as they sit. If you buy something good off the bat, the OC will help, but isn't needed by all to get 3-4 fps more.



The i7 are marketed as enthusiast chips x58 is an enthusiast chipset.  I've gotten more than 3-4 fps with my OC.  People who do not OC will buy something OCed by a company for them if they really are gamers without the know-how.  If there are just some careful kids who would not OC stuff their parents paid for MAYBE, but even as a kid 3.0GHz vs 2.8GHz would not be the same.  But wait... I just forgot something! None of this matters because any kid without the access to OC his computer is probably in the same school system as the kid that can afford the XBox360, so he'll most likely own a console because that's what the little sh*ts talk about all day with their Gears of War and Halo.

::EDIT:: sorry Paul... someone reposted these scores... I had to comment.


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 23, 2008)

platinumyahoo said:


> http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1376758
> someone is selling one for $250



I know.


----------



## kid41212003 (Dec 23, 2008)

Sonido said:


> Not entire false, but there's no actually virtual core. It's the extra ALU Intel thinks is really needed. With it off, you might actually get the same performance results. The thing is that, if Windows assigns 4 ALU's from two cores instead of one from each one, you can get a bottleneck. According to Intel, the redesign of HT with backside fixed that issue.



It's a known issues with Windows.

The Windows don't understand there are HT or Not, What it see are, 8 cores. 
And that's mean if your game/application support 2 threads, it will run on 1 core only.

I'm getting tired with all these benchmark, and I already saw this days/weeks ago, someone else posted them here.

Soon, Phenom II will come out, we will know soon.


----------



## platinumyahoo (Dec 23, 2008)

how much are 945 BEs gonna cost retail?


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 23, 2008)

platinumyahoo said:


> how much are 945 BEs gonna cost retail?



250$-300$ no one knows yet.


----------



## Steevo (Dec 23, 2008)

Sonido said:


> He's trying to fight the Bat! His relation to this thread is way off. I wanna know where did the i7's 920 come from..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wrone, GTA 4 already uses more than two cores. Once you breach the multi core boundry, settign up a thread switching and handling precess for the game and its resoureces becomes easy.


----------



## Sonido (Dec 23, 2008)

kid41212003 said:


> It's a known issues with Windows.
> 
> The Windows don't understand there are HT or Not, What it see are, 8 cores.
> And that's mean if your game/application support 2 threads, it will run on 1 core only.
> ...



I know. That's what I said in my post 

The thing is. I remember reading right before Oct., when i7's full spec sheet was out, Intel saying that they redesigned HT to fix that issue.

Sorry for the repost. I didn't see it.

Binge, forgive me I didn't see it. Friends forever?  You must admit my little review has to be better than what was posted 



Steevo said:


> Wrone, GTA 4 already uses more than two cores. Once you breach the multi core boundry, settign up a thread switching and handling precess for the game and its resoureces becomes easy.



I said barely. There are only two games (that I know of) that currently use more than 2 cores: Flight Sim and GTA 4. We won't see an 8 threaded game for some time. When it does, the mainstream CPU's might have 8 cores.


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 23, 2008)

kid41212003 said:


> It's a known issues with Windows.
> 
> The Windows don't understand there are HT or Not, What it see are, 8 cores.
> And that's mean if your game/application support 2 threads, it will run on 1 core only.
> ...



Exactly. i'm always amazed at these battles we go through, waving the flag of one company over another. C'mon guys, lets just enjoy the fact that there is some VERY good hardware available to us, at very fair prices. Kind of a "golden age" of hardware if you ask me.


----------



## kid41212003 (Dec 23, 2008)

Sonido said:


> I know. That's what I said in my post
> 
> The thing is. I remember reading right before Oct., when i7's full spec sheet was out, Intel saying that they redesigned HT to fix that issue.



Oh, really? My games appeared to perform better with HT disabled. And not by small margin.

Redesigned? The reports were made when the Core i7 is already out.

And what was the time that they did this benchmark?


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 23, 2008)

platinumyahoo said:


> how much are 945 BEs gonna cost retail?



From what I hear, they will be just under $300 when released in April. Just slightly more than the 940 BE, simply because it has the DDR3 controller, and can be used in both DDR2 and DDR3 boards.


----------



## platinumyahoo (Dec 23, 2008)

so Paulieg, i dont mean to sound stupid, but is that cpu on [h]ardforum yours?


----------



## Sonido (Dec 23, 2008)

kid41212003 said:


> Oh, really? My games appeared to perform better with HT disabled. And not by small margin.
> 
> Redesigned? The reports were made when the Core i7 is already out.
> 
> And what was the time that they did this benchmark?



I really don't see why you are trying to attack me but ok.

1) What you posted is what I said in my post. Where if there were 4 threads being processed, Windows, instead of using one from each core, would use both in two cores. I was agreeing with what you said.

2) The specs for i7 was out long before it's launch. There was a lot of speculation from certain hardware sites about the revival of Hyper threading. Intel, responding to these worries, stated that they were redesigning HT to alleviate congestion of the lines. Meaning, if both ALUs were activated on one core, it wouldn't cause too much of a lag (lag would still happen but it would be managed). This is actually something I read at a hardware enthusiasts site.

I don't understand why people are climbing on my back for.


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 23, 2008)

platinumyahoo said:


> so Paulieg, i dont mean to sound stupid, but is that cpu on [h]ardforum yours?



No, not mine.


----------



## Homeless (Dec 23, 2008)

Assuming these benchmarks are accurate, I don't see the point in buying PII over C2Q.  C2Q is cheaper and performs about the same.  Although in time Tri channel DDR3 may make some difference, the price differential between the two doesn't seem worth it


----------



## platinumyahoo (Dec 23, 2008)

i do have google quick search add-on on my firefox, but im too lazy, will phenom II be 65 or 45nm?


----------



## johnnyfiive (Dec 23, 2008)

Sadly, I won't have a Phenom II for months. X-Mas gift's took all my funds! Family first.  
(hopefully they read this and give me money so I can get a Phenom II.)


----------



## Sonido (Dec 23, 2008)

platinumyahoo said:


> i do have google quick search add-on on my firefox, but im too lazy, will phenom II be 65 or 45nm?



45 nm

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=78355


----------



## kid41212003 (Dec 23, 2008)

I did not saying anything about you, or your personal stuffs. You can't say that is an attack.

I disagreed that you said even with HT disable, the outcome would be the same. Because It's not in my case.

http://www.techradar.com/news/compu...s/how-windows-vista-drags-core-i7-down-480468

And, my cpu is not ES cpu, it's mean if there is bug it already fixed.

I expect the same things will all the games (because that what it did with my games, Company of Heroes, Crysis Warhead,...) that can not support at least 4 threads.


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 23, 2008)

Homeless said:


> Assuming these benchmarks are accurate, I don't see the point in buying PII over C2Q.  C2Q is cheaper and performs about the same.  Although in time Tri channel DDR3 may make some difference, the price differential between the two doesn't seem worth it



This is not true. The 920 will be below Q9450 prices, and the 940 will be less than the Q9550.


----------



## From_Nowhere (Dec 23, 2008)

Well, AMD seems to have finally made a fast Phenom.


----------



## platinumyahoo (Dec 23, 2008)

Paulieg said:


> This is not true. The 920 will be below Q9450 prices, and the 940 will be less than the Q9550.



Don't forget Black editions, that alone puts price/performance wayyy over...


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 23, 2008)

platinumyahoo said:


> Don't forget Black editions, that alone puts price/performance wayyy over...



The 940 is the black edition.


----------



## Sonido (Dec 23, 2008)

kid41212003 said:


> I did not saying anything about you, or your personal stuffs. You can't say that is an attack.
> 
> I disagreed that you said even with HT disable, the outcome would be the same. Because It's not in my case.
> 
> ...



But I didn't say it would be the same. I said it might, which it could possibly be. It's all good. We just misunderstood each other. Reading that article, that's been a problem since the P4 days.


----------



## ShadowFold (Dec 23, 2008)

Oh no wonder my P4 is sucking in Vista  Anyway I turn off HT or w/e?


----------



## kid41212003 (Dec 23, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Oh no wonder my P4 is sucking in Vista  Anyway I turn off HT or w/e?



Err no, in your case, it would improve your performance.

In Core i7 case, it just didn't use the full power of the cpu.


----------



## hat (Dec 23, 2008)

It looks like AMD has an advantage here. I hope they smash Intel in thier nuts with a jackhammer. Intel can afford it as they have so much OEM market control, and AMD needs every drop they can get at the moment as it seems.

I like both Intel and AMD. I own two great machines (at least great in my mind anyway, or they will be after christmas), one's an Intel and one's an AMD.


----------



## trt740 (Dec 23, 2008)

J-Man said:


> The new line of AMD's still suck. Intel are just greatness.



no they don't suck considering you don't have to buy a new motherboard and ram and they yield similar performance to more expensive intel boards. Where the chips are 200.00 more than amds and motherboards need to be purchased at a premium.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Dec 23, 2008)

we can depend on this , what about core i7 run with ddr3/2000 and phenom 2 run with ddr2/1066 , i think that's scores change when phenom 2 run on am3


----------



## a_ump (Dec 23, 2008)

this is good, with the 940 supposedly supposed to retail at 300 US and edging out the q9550 at $319. the 920 at what was it? 250 US AMD should do good if people open theirs eyes and look some stuff up before buying and assuming intel is best buy price/perf. not to mentionthat the q9650 is 519 US and it's just an FSB bump of the q9550, i don't see htose selling much once Phenom II is finally released. Good Job AMD, and lets hope these improvements in their architecture and design continue so the competition continues and we can get great CPU's for good price just as the GPU market has done this year.

EDIT:



hayder.master said:


> we can depend on this , what about core i7 run with ddr3/2000 and phenom 2 run with ddr2/1066 , i think that's scores change when phenom 2 run on am3



i had forgotten about AM3, i wonder what improvements that will bring as welll as using DDR3 memory. i thk the AM3 are coming out after the AM2+ versions to help see if their are any minor bugs that can be fixed or tweaks for the AM3 chips.


----------



## trt740 (Dec 23, 2008)

From_Nowhere said:


> Well, AMD seems to have finally made a fast Phenom.



Not sure what you mean my current phenom at 3.0 ghz is about equal to 2x 6000+ cpus linked and by no means is it slow. May not be as fast as some intel chips but considering two years ago It would have cost a average guy 2,000.00 (if produced) and been one of the fastest chips made it's no slouch. It won't bottle neck any video card out and multitasks like a beast, and for the price is a great buy.


----------



## Corrosion (Dec 23, 2008)

There clocked lower and still staying close up to the i7's. just think if they were at the same mhz. probably be close to even. but i7 i bet has more headroom for OCing.


----------



## a_ump (Dec 23, 2008)

Corrosion said:


> There clocked lower and still staying close up to the i7's. just think if they were at the same mhz. probably be close to even. but i7 i bet has more headroom for OCing.



not really, i hear they're harder to oc and htere have been multiple threads on the oc'ing of them, and they run hotter according to some reads i've looked at. I still find it dam strange that Nehalem isn't that much better than Penryn since it's a new architecture....i thk the lack of competition created the lack of inovation at intel, kinda like Nvidia did this year since they had no competition from ATI, that is till HD 4XXX series released and pissed in Nvidia's cereal


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Dec 23, 2008)

J-Man said:


> I took a look but only a LITTLE better then the 920 and only 1-2 frames better then my Q9550. Seems my current quad will be fine for a while and still be getting the same frames as a 920/Phenom X4



There is no 920 in those graphs.


----------



## HolyCow02 (Dec 23, 2008)

This makes me wonder what the retail versions will be able to do, and then what the AM3 version will be able to do. This excites me. Hopefully if there are any problems, they will be fixed by the time the am3's are released.


----------



## Polarman (Dec 23, 2008)

On thing for sure. It's going to leave my aging FX in the dust.


----------



## MAGMADIVER (Dec 25, 2008)

*Pii 940*

I think that this processor will function like the market like the 4870, it won't be the fastest but it will be fast enough to put a fright into intel and priced to make it attractive. With an expected bump of 5% or so with the DDR3 the PII could really make Intel drop its prices and then even the intel fanyaois will win.  Im just glad that AMD is really going to release the 940 at 3Ghz unlike that c*ck tease screen shot of a Barcelona system running at 3Ghz about this time last year.( I think it was on anandtech or Tom's)...I was a chump and decided to get a 9850 BE, it overclocks terribly.  I do think that this will be one of the last stands for AMD if they drop a hot coil of poo on us again.  또봐.


----------



## kysg (Dec 25, 2008)

proc will do what it set out do.  kick some ass.

Ft. Lewis man I haven't been there in years.  anyways I'm gonna opt for the x3 that should do some serious damage.


----------



## MAGMADIVER (Dec 25, 2008)

*Ft. Lewis*

The weather here is sucking.  I just got here a few months ago and it has been snowing or raining for 2 months straight, no wonder this is the suicide capital of the US, its so dreary that heaven or hell certainly have a better view.


----------



## a_ump (Jan 6, 2009)

Haha i'm glad that my purchase of the q6600 was a great one, though i gotta say, AMD is in the same boat that ATI was in a year ago. 2 year old processors keeping up with what they have to offer , though it is interesting also that my chip performs better than an i7 in some cases


----------



## freaksavior (Jan 6, 2009)

its honestly not fair because its ddr3 vs ddr2.

I need benches @1920x1200 and h.264 benches. 

although this does look good.

If the AMD ends up being a little slower for less money then this should turn out good and let us oc them enough to be matching.


----------



## a_ump (Jan 6, 2009)

i'm not quite sure how this would turn out good? i thought so too as well, but since a q6600 can be had for $189 on the egg and these running mid $200's to possibly low $300's, idk if they will sell that much, i'm sure they will just cause it's a big deal that they are making 3ghz chips and they're on par with the q6600 usually.


----------



## HTC (Jan 6, 2009)

a_ump said:


> i'm not quite sure how this would turn out good? i thought so too as well, but since a q6600 can be had for $189 on the egg and these running mid $200's to possibly low $300's, idk if they will sell that much, i'm sure they will just cause it's a big deal that they are making 3ghz chips and they're on par with the q6600 usually.



I would imagine that it's because the PII can be OCed a LOT more then the Q6600 can.


----------



## Scrizz (Jan 6, 2009)

can't w8 for all this stuff to finally come out


----------



## T1Cybernetic (Jan 13, 2009)

I thought the new phenom II chips were rivals to the intel QC and not the i7 cpu's ?


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 13, 2009)

T1Cybernetic said:


> I thought the new phenom II chips were rivals to the intel QC and not the i7 cpu's ?



940 = Q9450
920 slightly better > Q6600
It was made to be competitive to the I7's but failed. Which ever way PhenomII is a great buy for it's price.


----------



## DrPepper (Jan 13, 2009)

I'd say phenom II wasn't aimed at i7 performance wise, more like core2 but it is priced to be competitive against both of them.


----------



## Darren (Jan 13, 2009)

T1Cybernetic said:


> I thought the new phenom II chips were rivals to the intel QC and not the i7 cpu's ?






spearman914 said:


> 940 = Q9450
> 920 slightly better > Q6600
> It was made to be competitive to the I7's but failed. Which ever way PhenomII is a great buy for it's price.



slightly incorrect, it was never intended to compete directly with the i7, AMD said a year ago that the Phenom II was built to compete with the Q9xxx-series. Sheesh 

Phenom 9950 BE = Q6600
Phenom II 920 = Q9300/Q9400
Phenom II 940 = Q9400/Q9500


----------



## trickson (Jan 13, 2009)

OH Ican't wait to get the Q9550  Simply the best .


----------



## Melvis (Jan 13, 2009)

MAGMADIVER said:


> The weather here is sucking.  I just got here a few months ago and it has been snowing or raining for 2 months straight, no wonder this is the suicide capital of the US, its so dreary that heaven or hell certainly have a better view.



Ill swap ya then? you can come live here in NSW Australia where it just broke 50% of the drought in the past 7months, before that we havent had a drop of rain in over 7yrs  Now thats suicide capital....


----------



## trickson (Jan 13, 2009)

Melvis said:


> Ill swap ya then? you can come live here in NSW Australia where it just broke 50% of the drought in the past 7months, before that we havent had a drop of rain in over 7yrs  Now thats suicide capital....



Lets try to stay on topic weather or not the Q9550 is soon to be MINE  .


----------



## Melvis (Jan 13, 2009)

trickson said:


> Lets try to stay on topic weather or not the Q9550 is soon to be MINE  .



My bad, o and looks to me that the Phenom 940 is doing very well considering its not even in its prime yet  (AM3 Mobo and DDR3)


----------



## Binge (Jan 13, 2009)

Melvis said:


> My bad, o and looks to me that the Phenom 940 is doing very well considering its not even in its prime yet  (AM3 Mobo and DDR3)



Not possible the 940 is not AMD3 compatible.


----------



## T1Cybernetic (Jan 13, 2009)

spearman914 said:


> Which ever way PhenomII is a great buy for it's price.



Yes either way i am tempted


----------



## Melvis (Jan 13, 2009)

Binge said:


> Not possible the 940 is not AMD3 compatible.



 ok the 945 then sheesh basically the same


----------



## Binge (Jan 13, 2009)

Except a different pin count and motherboard support.  So totally different.  This thread has gone to the crapper...


----------



## trickson (Jan 13, 2009)

Sonido said:


>



This is what I like  Just look at that Q9550 
Once over clocked to 3.8GHz it would SMASH the PII .


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 13, 2009)

PII is equal to the C2Q's and doesn't beat i7, yet PII is less expensive then i7, in which makes you pick between the C2Q's or PII if on a budget or already on a AM2+ board, while the people with fatter wallets go for i7.


----------



## Melvis (Jan 13, 2009)

Binge said:


> Except a different pin count and motherboard support.  So totally different.  This thread has gone to the crapper...



Obversly, but basically the same.


----------



## trickson (Jan 13, 2009)

CDdude55 said:


> PII is equal to the C2Q's and doesn't beat i7, yet PII is less expensive then i7, in which makes you pick between the C2Q's or PII if on a budget or already on a AM2+ board, while the people with fatter wallets go for i7.



Well I stand to gain a lot from an upgrade of CPU only as I have the setup that is easy for the Q9550 but as you say if you have the setup for the AMD why not just get the 920? 
I can say that the i7 and the Q9550 are some what on par with each other or so it looks that way to me


----------



## vash6the6stampede (Jan 26, 2009)

trickson said:


> This is what I like  Just look at that Q9550
> Once over clocked to 3.8GHz it would SMASH the PII .




Everything you thought was right...until






source:
http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?t=585100&page=31


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 26, 2009)

vash6the6stampede said:


> Everything you thought was right...until
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is that air??!?!?!?


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 26, 2009)

spearman914 said:


> Is that air??!?!?!?



Probably not. I will say that I can give a 4.0 screenshot, but it's meaningless unless it's stable. I believe cdawall has a cpu-z of almost 4.2ghz on the 945 ES I sold him. These are nice chips, and mine "feels" faster and smoother in most all applications compared to my old 9550.


----------



## trickson (Jan 26, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> Probably not. I will say that I can give a 4.0 screenshot, but it's meaningless unless it's stable. I believe cdawall has a cpu-z of almost 4.2ghz on the 945 ES I sold him. These are nice chips, and mine "feels" faster and smoother in most all applications compared to my old 9550.



Even with the old Q9550 over clocked ? how high were you able to get your Q9550 ?


----------



## PaulieG (Jan 26, 2009)

trickson said:


> Even with the old Q9550 over clocked ? how high were you able to get your Q9550 ?




The issue I had with my 9550 is voltage limits. I could get it reasonably stable at 3.95 on 1.45v. That's as high of a 24/7 vcore that you want on those chips. Electron migration will kill them fast. And yes, i'm comparing it to the 9550 overclocked. I never run stock.


----------



## vash6the6stampede (Jan 26, 2009)

spearman914 said:


> Is that air??!?!?!?



Yes.

Read the source link.   It wasn't from me.


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 26, 2009)

vash6the6stampede said:


> Yes.
> 
> Read the source link.   It wasn't from me.


vERY SURPRISNG!!...


----------



## vash6the6stampede (Jan 26, 2009)

spearman914 said:


> vERY SURPRISNG!!...



Oh, and there was another guy did a 4.3GHZ overclocking on the previous page.  It was stable for 3dmark06.

Not sure what cooling he used though.


----------



## trickson (Jan 26, 2009)

I don't know much but from this I only see i7 and Intel CPU's  top of the class . 

http://service.futuremark.com/searc...pus=-100&graphicsdriver=3&operatingsystem=561

But I could be wrong .
I just don't see any PII's at all .


----------



## ShadowFold (Jan 26, 2009)

trickson said:


> I don't know much but from this I only see i7 and Intel CPU's  top of the class .
> 
> http://service.futuremark.com/searc...pus=-100&graphicsdriver=3&operatingsystem=561
> 
> ...



Oh man I know, I play 3dmark all DAY! It's so much funner than real games!


----------



## trickson (Jan 26, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Oh man I know, I play 3dmark all DAY! It's so much funner than real games!



Dude don't get all bent out of shape here , You see some one post up a screen shot of there Phenom II and really not giving you the whole story I gave a link that shows the picture well . If you look there is even an E8600 pulling some incredible #'s !


----------



## vash6the6stampede (Jan 26, 2009)

trickson said:


> Dude don't get all bent out of shape here , You see some one post up a screen shot of there Phenom II and really not giving you the whole story I gave a link that shows the picture well . If you look there is even an E8600 pulling some incredible #'s !



I am that "someone" who posted the screenshot here.   (Did not say the score belong to me.  Simply posted it here from somewhere else)


However, if you noticed, the screenshot of 3dmark06 with PII was tested with a 3870x2.    While the top scores of 3dmark06 were all with 4870x2.  Big difference there.

P.S.  That E8600 is at 6467 MHZ.  Obviously not "normal".    Not an average overclocking for sure.    From what I heard, lots of people are reaching 4GHZ with PII on air.


----------



## trickson (Jan 26, 2009)

vash6the6stampede said:


> I am that "someone" who posted the screenshot.
> 
> 
> However, if you noticed, the screenshot of 3dmark06 with PII was tested with a 3870x2.    While the top scores of 3dmark06 were all with 4870x2.  Big difference there.



I know I was being general and taking the top of the line that I could get . The fact is the 4870 X2 is the fastest video card on the market IMHO so I ran with that one if you post post up with some comparisons not just your score this mean nothing when you do not compare the system to others as well this thread is i7 Vs Phenom II gaming ! Not look at my score .


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 26, 2009)

Paulieg said:


> OK, I'm going AMD here, but don't kid yourself people. The PII is not a i7 killer. It will match Penryn, or maybe slightly better. It will be a good VALUE compared to Intel. Oh, and lets not turn this thread into a fanboy flame war. Let's just be happy that maybe...just maybe, AMD offered a processor worth buying this generation.



too late it already has became a flamewar


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 26, 2009)

J-Man said:


> The new line of AMD's still suck. Intel are just greatness.



Oh man you have to love a good bait.


----------



## Darren (Jan 26, 2009)

trickson said:


> I can say that the i7 and the Q9550 are some what on par with each other or so it looks that way to me



Strange how you openly admit that the Q9550 is on par with the i7, but you refuse to admit that the Phenom II is on par with the i7 despite the Q9550 being on par with the Phenom II 940


----------



## trickson (Jan 26, 2009)

Darren said:


> Strange how you openly admit that the Q9550 is on par with the i7, but you refuse to admit that the Phenom II is on par with the i7 despite the Q9550 being on par with the Phenom II 940



Yes you are right I should not have said this ( I am sorry for that ) the Q9550 is not on par with the i7 NOT at all and the Phenom II is NOT AT ALL on par with the i7 it is not even close . 
To be honest clock for clock the Q9550 is faster than the Phenom II and when over clocked the Intel chip takes the Phenom II out . ( this of course is with as close to system settings as on can get on both systems ) . To recap Yes the PII 940 is on par with the Q9550 the PII 920 is on par with the Q9400 this is why Intel lowered the prices of these CPU's . Have you seen any great reduction in the i7 ? how about the Q9650 ? or the QX9770 ? no why is this ? HMM because AMD can not give enough competition to Intel for them to lower the prices this is why .


----------



## kg4icg (Jan 26, 2009)

You know what is Ironic, this has been said time and time again and have been shown too. Every time someone brings up the benchies with a single video card setup for core i7 they forget that it's gpu bound. When you start doing sli and crossfire then the numbers really start to show. By the way, don't forget that the i7's don't need to change out the motherboards to do crossfire and sli, just the video cards.


----------



## trickson (Jan 26, 2009)

kg4icg said:


> You know what is Ironic, this has been said time and time again and have been shown too. Every time someone brings up the benchies with a single video card setup for core i7 they forget that it's gpu bound. When you start doing sli and crossfire then the numbers really start to show. By the way, don't forget that the i7's don't need to change out the motherboards to do crossfire and sli, just the video cards.



You are so right !


----------



## DRDNA (Jan 26, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I didn't find it surprising. For multithreaded things that can't use 8 cores, the HT actually makes it slower. It ends up mixing together Virtual cores with physical ones, due to the way Windows assigns the cores. Turn off HT, and the results are very different.





Sonido said:


> Not entirely false, but there's no actual virtual core. It's the extra ALU Intel thinks is really needed. With it off, you might actually get the same performance results. The thing is that, if Windows assigns 4 ALU's from two cores instead of one from each one, you can get a bottleneck. According to Intel, the redesign of HT with backside fixed that issue.



I can see NO differance in my 3DM05 and 06 scores nore in gaming with HT disabled...NONE ....So maybe in some cases but not in all cases does disabling HT help ...I play all the newest NFS from MW on...Farcry2... Halo2....GRID...and a bunch more.


----------



## Dan2312 (Jan 27, 2009)

Im gonna not even take them graphs into account. no mention of what motherboards are used, btw i only read the 1st page, 

i also am a Custom PC mag subscriber and their own benchmarks show different results, that the phenom ii is no quicker than a Q6600. It gets spanked by the I7.


----------



## spearman914 (Jan 27, 2009)

DRDNA said:


> I can see NO differance in my 3DM05 and 06 scores nore in gaming with HT disabled...NONE ....So maybe in some cases but not in all cases does disabling HT help ...I play all the newest NFS from MW on...Farcry2... Halo2....GRID...and a bunch more.



It's probably FC2/3Dm 06 05 already supports 4 cores, so HT disabled won't make a difference. As if it only supports 2 cores then HT "WILL" make a difference.


----------



## kid41212003 (Jan 27, 2009)

HT disable.






HT enable.


----------



## trickson (Jan 27, 2009)

So the i7 has HT ? I did not know this as I thought that Intel did away with hyper threading . 
I know mine doesn't support it .


----------



## MrHydes (Apr 12, 2009)

well at list those tests could show resolution, and configuration settings, because i was

 wondering how come a 940  beat a i7920 on Warhead, that's only possible

on very low res i think. Never seen such thing before.

The thing that bodders me the most is that i bet those tests were with +AM2

wich is DDR2 vs X58 (only DDR3) 

cheers


----------



## n-ster (Apr 12, 2009)

bumping a 3 month old thread? wth?


----------



## MrHydes (Apr 12, 2009)

n-ster said:


> bumping a 3 month old thread? wth?



so what? Phenom II still is on Review and on chart's so...


----------



## n-ster (Apr 12, 2009)

This review isn't fair anyways... this is already much better

I'll let you find out what is bad about this review


----------



## MrHydes (Apr 12, 2009)

Darren said:


> I think it is a preview not a proper review.
> 
> It definitely wan't an offical review, if you want real results search google for the new reviews since release.



we were discussing this results in another forum, and i've posted because the bench seemed

really odd to me... of course i've seen newer stuff, but thanks anyways


----------



## iandh (Apr 13, 2009)

n-ster said:


> This review isn't fair anyways... this is already much better
> 
> I'll let you find out what is bad about this review



That review shows PII getting an ass whooping in number crunching and synthetic benches, which we all know it loses horribly to i7...

The OP review of this thread was real world gaming and that is a whole different story.


----------



## n-ster (Apr 13, 2009)

iandh said:


> That review shows PII getting an ass whooping in number crunching and synthetic benches, which we all know it loses horribly to i7...
> 
> The OP review of this thread was real world gaming and that is a whole different story.



Yea I know xD 

BUT i7 does NOT get beat in gaming by the PII... and beats PII in multi-GPU setups... agree?

Oh and i7 is made to be OCed... so with both i7 920 and PII OCed, even with HT off, i7 probably beats PII... or at least is on par for single-GPU gaming...

For gaming I would suggest a PIIx3


----------



## demonkevy666 (Apr 13, 2009)

Dan2312 said:


> Im gonna not even take them graphs into account. no mention of what motherboards are used, btw i only read the 1st page,
> 
> i also am a Custom PC mag subscriber and their own benchmarks show different results, that the phenom ii is no quicker than a Q6600. It gets spanked by the I7.



Q6600 _8mbs of cache at 2.4ghz _Phenom ii 6mbs of *L3 cache at 1.8ghz*
hit rates on L3 are higher per-clock then L2 there are lot of misses and inter core communication on L2 in core 2 duo design.

bump that phenom to to 2.4ghz on Nb speed, you'll be above Q6600 and bump up to 28-3.0ghz you should be above penryn.


----------



## demonkevy666 (Apr 13, 2009)

Sonido said:


> Not entirely false, but there's no actual virtual core. It's the extra ALU Intel thinks is really needed. With it off, you might actually get the same performance results. The thing is that, if Windows assigns 4 ALU's from two cores instead of one from each one, you can get a bottleneck. According to Intel, the redesign of HT with backside fixed that issue.



extra ALU's that would imply that intel can't fit anymore IPC to the cores they have as in the L1 cache is half the size of AMD's L1 cache. Perhaps this why AMD is still doing well in hi resolution still and not quite as well in multi gpu. It maybe more ALU's but the data pool is still small, and big GPU's like data. this won't work in multi gpu because everything wants some data from the same core so I7 has the extra data waiting for it. So this my hypothesis on why phenom II is good on single gpu at hi res and I7 better a multi GPU.


----------



## iandh (Apr 13, 2009)

n-ster said:


> Yea I know xD
> 
> BUT i7 does NOT get beat in gaming by the PII... and beats PII in multi-GPU setups... agree?
> 
> ...



Yes I definitely agree. I have seen PII hold its own very well even up to CF/SLI setups, but once you have 3-4 GPU's PII doesn't stand a chance against i7.

One would have to be completely daft not to consider the PII 720 BE @ $136 as THE BEST deal for gaming at this point in time.

I find that AMD/Intel i7 are superior for gaming in some cases because of their integrated memory controllers, and this was confirmed by a couple controversial Anandtech reviews declaring Phenom II "smoother" than intel 775 setups in some gaming situations. They outright said they preferred the PII 940 over Q9550 due to its smoothness.

FYI I own both AMD and Intel rigs, and have friends and family members at both companies.



demonkevy666 said:


> Q6600 _8mbs of cache at 2.4ghz _Phenom ii 6mbs of *L3 cache at 1.8ghz*
> hit rates on L3 are higher per-clock then L2 there are lot of misses and inter core communication on L2 in core 2 duo design.
> 
> bump that phenom to to 2.4ghz on Nb speed, you'll be above Q6600 and bump up to 28-3.0ghz you should be above penryn.



The Phenom II spanks the living crap out of Q6600 at gaming, PERIOD. That post you quoted was closed-minded fanboyish BS. I own a Q6600 and Phenom II's and have thoroughly played them both in nearly every top title, so would say I have pretty good first hand experience to make this judgement.

I now use my Q6600 for encoding only.


----------



## Binge (Apr 13, 2009)

Please give it a rest?  This thread was dead months ago.  Post #105 01-26-2009, 11:16 PM

::EDIT:: In addition this topic is as boring and unpleasant as smegma.


----------



## iandh (Apr 13, 2009)

Binge said:


> Please give it a rest?  This thread was dead months ago.  Post #105 01-26-2009, 11:16 PM



Yes, I learned to read numbers somewhere around 25 years ago. I have gotten pretty good at it by now. 

The only person to complain to is the person who performed the thread necromancy.


I'd be happy to start a new thread to continue the conversation I am currently having, so you won't have to be bothered by those pesky numbers up there, just LMK.


----------



## Darren (Apr 13, 2009)

iandh, 

When everyone is bashing AMD, everyone is ok for this "old thread" to go ahead.
The second you defend AMD its "this thread was dead months ago"


----------



## Binge (Apr 13, 2009)

Look I don't have to make an excuse as to why I'm commenting now instead of when it started to happen.  If you want a reason I'll tell you, but seriously I was a part of this thread when it started and it is as stupid now as it was then.  I'd be happy to comment again in some other thread you start about how stupid this is.  We've moved on.  People are now doing comparisons and talking about the pros and cons of each system in a more educated manner.


----------



## iandh (Apr 13, 2009)

Binge said:


> Look I don't have to make an excuse as to why I'm commenting now instead of when it started to happen.  If you want a reason I'll tell you, but seriously I was a part of this thread when it started and it is as stupid now as it was then.  I'd be happy to comment again in some other thread you start about how stupid this is.  We've moved on.  People are now doing comparisons and talking about the pros and cons of each system in a more educated manner.



I've definintely read some stupid in this thread, along with every similar thread that included these particular benchmarks on every forum that I frequent.

I must say, as long as it stays friendly, i7 vs. 775 vs. PII in gaming is a VERY legitimate and interesting discussion, especially if all involved have experience with the systems in question. 


I'll just say this- graphs don't tell the whole story when you're sitting in front of the machine and actually playing. I don't know how much more "educated" you can get than that... I will say NOT by reading a bunch of graphs.


----------



## Binge (Apr 13, 2009)

I can say I've experienced the same thing with different graphics cards.  Small details that were not included in any review, and I do agree that a phenom II will handle games better than a Q6600, and I think better than any 775 because of their memory I/O.  Because they don't rely on the FSB they are a much better option.  Games love memory bandwidth.  You can't quite describe the nuances of each system with a graph, and I say that is even more of a reason to say these threads are completely pointless.  Too many of the people in this thread are preachers and there is a lack of individuals asking any questions, so why preach to a preacher?  That back and forth is a fight then and that's all it is.  L8r d00d


----------



## Sonido (Apr 13, 2009)

iandh said:


> That review shows PII getting an ass whooping in number crunching and synthetic benches, which we all know it loses horribly to i7...
> 
> The OP review of this thread was real world gaming and that is a whole different story.



Excatly.



n-ster said:


> This review isn't fair anyways... this is already much better
> 
> I'll let you find out what is bad about this review



Read quote above. The main thing you guys are missing is that the 940 (and 945) is running on HT 3.0. Imagine it running on HT 3.1 w/ DDR3. The amount of information, bi-directionaly, should be close to what i7 is giving. Of course, AM3 will not have tri-channel memory, but ATM, it seems to be a gimmick than something worth having.



Binge said:


> Look I don't have to make an excuse as to why I'm commenting now instead of when it started to happen.  If you want a reason I'll tell you, but seriously I was a part of this thread when it started and it is as stupid now as it was then.  I'd be happy to comment again in some other thread you start about how stupid this is.  We've moved on.  People are now doing comparisons and talking about the pros and cons of each system in a more educated manner.



Binge, if you don't like this thread or the discussion being had here, skip it. No one is forcing you to click the link, nor is anyone inviting you to post a reply. You always seem to have a negative, holier-than-thou type of attitude. I have nothing against you, but please take it easy. I thought you were a nice guy .


----------



## Binge (Apr 13, 2009)

By the same token, if you don't like what I say you shouldn't comment on it either eh?


----------



## The_Real_DeaL31 (Apr 13, 2009)

u need 3 sticks of ddr3 ram to run triple channel right, what would happen with only two dimms would dual channel still be enabled


----------



## Binge (Apr 13, 2009)

You need 3 sticks of DDR3 for triple channel.  Two sticks would run in dual channel.  If you have any more questions about an i7 system you might want to try asking here:

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=76464


----------



## The_Real_DeaL31 (Apr 13, 2009)

hehe sorry binge just curious


----------

