# AMD Readying Phenom II X4 965



## btarunr (Jun 27, 2009)

Following its roadmap, AMD is continuing with new processor releases based on the Deneb core with increases in the multiplier. The Phenom II X4 965 comes with a clock speed of 3.40 GHz, and an FSB multiplier of 17.0x, giving it a 200 MHz increase over the 955 Black Edition. It is not known if 965 comes in a Black Edition branding, one which could determine its pricing. If launched as a Black Edition (version with unlocked bus multiplier), It could either be priced above the 955, or could displace it and position itself at US $249.99. Without the BE branding it could be priced slightly lower. The new chip will be based on the AM3 package, supporting DDR3 1333 MHz and DDR2 1066 MHz. It comes at a time when AMD is releasing the RS880-based AMD 785G chipset. AMD will dispatch samples of the Phenom II X4 965 starting next week.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Mussels (Jun 27, 2009)

3.4Ghz stock clocks is pretty impressive.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 27, 2009)

I'm hearing that the C2 revision-stepping of Deneb can allow making SKUs till 3.80 or even 4.00 GHz safely, maybe the higher clocked ones scraping the 140W TDP mark. I can't confirm this though.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 27, 2009)

AMD might well come ahead of intel here, at least until i5 comes out.... (i7 is too expensive, AM3 will definately have more bang per buck compared to that)


----------



## Yukikaze (Jun 27, 2009)

I hope this is Black Edition. It looks positively tasty.


----------



## lepra24 (Jun 27, 2009)

Yes Amd


----------



## MRCL (Jun 27, 2009)

Sounds good! AMD drags me more and more to their side.


----------



## Mega-Japan (Jun 27, 2009)

That's pretty fast... At this rate we'll probably get the 4.0GHz Phenom II before year's end >.>


----------



## Duncan1 (Jun 27, 2009)

It seems that its indeed Black Edition branded, according to a table from asrock website (first cpu on the list)


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jun 27, 2009)

I'm sure it's going to come up, so I might as well bring it up before the other camp gets here. If you can't beat them in performance per clock, I say clock it too the moon, but it's working, looks to be a beasty proc.


----------



## Yukikaze (Jun 27, 2009)

1Kurgan1 said:


> I'm sure it's going to come up, so I might as well bring it up before the other camp gets here. If you can't beat them in performance per clock, I say clock it too the moon, but it's working, looks to be a beasty proc.



Ironically, though, it reminds me of a time in the past where efficiency per clock worked somewhat in reverse.


----------



## legends84 (Jun 27, 2009)

lol... i just got my PII 955 BE.. should've wait for this


----------



## Easo (Jun 27, 2009)

Nice, nice...


----------



## Melvis (Jun 27, 2009)

That is impressive, maybe the 4.0GHz Phenom FX's roomers was not fake after all?


----------



## wiak (Jun 27, 2009)

looks like it will be Black Edition





after asrock leak http://en.expreview.com/2009/06/27/phenom-ii-x4-965-black-edition-coming-next-week.html


----------



## lococol (Jun 27, 2009)

thats a tasty cpu , for me it would require a new motherboard and ram , would it be better than i7-920 in games , i don't care about anything else


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 27, 2009)

lococol said:


> thats a tasty cpu , for me it would require a new motherboard and ram , would it be better than i7-920 in games , i don't care about anything else



It would be for all intents and purposes the same. i7 would be a bit faster in games if you measured it most likely, but in game you won't tell much. If it would require a new cpu and mb though, i7 would likely be roughly the same price, and perhaps even a bit cheaper if you do it right (at least upon 965 release, though a couple of weeks after it will probably drop to lower than i7).


----------



## SystemViper (Jun 27, 2009)

i have been thinking of test driving a amd setup, this looks like a good starting poiint~


----------



## soryuuha (Jun 27, 2009)

I hope this is not just simply clock bump, better binned please


----------



## Kitkat (Jun 27, 2009)

great i can put this in my crosshair and ebay may slightly used 955 



soryuuha said:


> I hope this is not just simply clock bump, better binned please



Yeah me too. This might be the one with the lowered twp? (ofcourse its higher now) But it was anounced they got it back down again, and that anoucment was about 2 months ago? so maybe.


----------



## n-ster (Jun 27, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> It would be for all intents and purposes the same. i7 would be a bit faster in games if you measured it most likely, but in game you won't tell much. If it would require a new cpu and mb though, i7 would likely be roughly the same price, and perhaps even a bit cheaper if you do it right (at least upon 965 release, though a couple of weeks after it will probably drop to lower than i7).



agreed... too many people still think you have to buy an i7 for 300$ another 250~300$ mobo and some 150$ RAM... this is not the case anymore...

If you work at bestbuy or walmart or you have a friend that does, you can sign up for the retailedge program from intel and get an i7 920 + windows + windows 7 voucher or something for 129$! A good used mobo should be 150$, or NIB from Newegg with the current 10% off (15$ max) 170~175$... then 80~85$ for 6gb of great RAM... CPU cooler (+ TIM perhaps) if you don't have one will be 40$ NIB... Totals 380~420$...


I wonder how good the new chipset will be... Perhaps 4ghz will become easy to do with this chip now?


----------



## Polarman (Jun 27, 2009)

965 = 3.4
975 = 3.6
985 = 3.8
995 = 4.0

Yeah!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jun 27, 2009)

Polarman said:


> 965 = 3.4
> 975 = 3.6
> 985 = 3.8
> 995 = 4.0
> ...



im not sure about this, AMD may decide to look at what worked for the Athlon XP, they were able to get more IPC using lower clocks overall than intel at the time. Clock Speed is one thing but IPC has benefits.


----------



## Easo (Jun 27, 2009)

Polarman said:


> 965 = 3.4
> 975 = 3.6
> 985 = 3.8
> 995 = 4.0
> ...



Dreams, dreams...


----------



## r9 (Jun 27, 2009)

Great now we wont see 940 mature in to 4 GHz overclockers those one are called 955 965. I just can`t see the greatness.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 27, 2009)

eidairaman1 said:


> im not sure about this, AMD may decide to look at what worked for the Athlon XP, they were able to get more IPC using lower clocks overall than intel at the time. Clock Speed is one thing but IPC has benefits.



Somehow I think that the roles have switched - i.e. until the next architecture AMD will be ramping clock-rates to keep up with i5 since the IPC is greater on i5 than on Phenom II


----------



## VulkanBros (Jun 27, 2009)

wiak said:


> looks like it will be Black Edition
> http://en.expreview.com/img/2009/06/27/PhenomII_X4_965BE.png
> after asrock leak http://en.expreview.com/2009/06/27/phenom-ii-x4-965-black-edition-coming-next-week.html



That´s one hell of a FSB frequency.......


----------



## wiak (Jun 27, 2009)

VulkanBros said:


> That´s one hell of a FSB frequency.......


so you still think AMD still use Front Slow Bus like Intel does?


----------



## VulkanBros (Jun 27, 2009)

wiak said:


> so you still think AMD still use Front Slow Bus like Intel does?



Nope.....sure don´t hope there on speed...haha


----------



## Nick89 (Jun 27, 2009)

LMAO. Poor bastards that bought the 955


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 27, 2009)

btarunr said:


> I'm hearing that the C2 revision-stepping of Deneb can allow making SKUs till 3.80 or even 4.00 GHz safely, maybe the higher clocked ones scraping the 140W TDP mark. I can't confirm this though.


The roles have reversed.  Intel has the IPC advantage so AMD is pushing for higher and higher clocks.  It reminds me of Pentium 4/Athlon 64 days except backwards.




Mussels said:


> AMD might well come ahead of intel here, at least until i5 comes out.... (i7 is too expensive, AM3 will definately have more bang per buck compared to that)


Core i7 has *a lot* of clockspeed headroom.  I'm afraid this clockspeed war AMD is starting is one they can't win.  The question is, at what point does Intel counter them?  I doubt 3.6 GHz is enough but 3.8 GHz might be.  We might see Intel respond with a 3.6 GHz Core i7.

At least until Intel responds, this might drive Intel prices down which is good for everyone.


----------



## snakeoil (Jun 27, 2009)

overheating core i7 can't ramp up speed

the overheating core i7 can't increase stock speed beyond 3.3, overheats too much because of   hyperthreading, phenom II is power efficient and stays cool, which gives room for increasing stock speed using stock cooler


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 27, 2009)

All that means is Intel will have to include large HSFs and when you're buying a $600+ processor, a $50 HSF is a drop in the bucket.  Then again, Intel might not do anything with the upperend of Core i7 until 32nm Westmere processors are out.


----------



## snakeoil (Jun 27, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> All that means is Intel will have to include large HSFs and when you're buying a $600+ processor, a $50 HSF is a drop in the bucket.



yeah they should include a coolermaster V8 as stock cooler, for  $1000 bucks they should


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jun 27, 2009)

Ooh I was gonna grab a 720 or a 955, but I may grab this, especially if the price is 250.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jun 28, 2009)

i see it is 955 with overclock , we wait and see the black addition 965 cuz this well be hit 7Ghz world overclock record


----------



## Kitkat (Jun 28, 2009)

legends84 said:


> lol... i just got my PII 955 BE.. should've wait for this



hahaha honestly nah... 975 prolly your train to catch



snakeoil said:


> overheating core i7 can't ramp up speed
> 
> the overheating core i7 can't increase stock speed beyond 3.3, overheats to much because of   hyperthreading, phenom II is power efficient and stays cool, which gives room for increasing stock speed using stock cooler
> 
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=26915&stc=1&d=1246140427



k so i did laff outloud lol anways stuff hapens between too i hope it is a stepping revision + the lower watt (required) ver. they have resently anounced. I honestly dont think there gonna keep bumping all the way to 955. Some other descovery will hapen or tweak b4 they do that. (controler improvement, twp drop again ect matiral change) Im also hoping they go ahead and skip 2 of those in the end lol I remember when 945 got passed up for black and it was given to 955. I seriouly wanted the next anouncement news to be 975. But heay 200+ still want it if its black lol, thats gonna be great


----------



## PCpraiser100 (Jun 28, 2009)

W00t for AMD expanding the Phenom series.


----------



## t77snapshot (Jun 28, 2009)

Nick89 said:


> LMAO. Poor bastards that bought the 955



Yeah I was saving up for a 955.....but now there is a 965 coming?! It seems like the 955 just came out, wow times flies AMD is really stepping it up I love it


----------



## Kantastic (Jun 28, 2009)

I find it amusing how both AMD and Intel have a bunch of 9xx chips.

920
945
955 - I believe Intel will be releasing a 955?
965


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Jun 28, 2009)

That is pretty sweet they are bringing out the 965! But then again, I don't have any monies, so I can't really 
build a new system like I want to 
Wonder how the overclockability will be on it


----------



## aj28 (Jun 28, 2009)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Core i7 has *a lot* of clockspeed headroom.  I'm afraid this clockspeed war AMD is starting is one they can't win.  The question is, at what point does Intel counter them?  I doubt 3.6 GHz is enough but 3.8 GHz might be.  We might see Intel respond with a 3.6 GHz Core i7.



Eh, that's questionable really. And besides, what are we measuring on, stock coolers or LN2? The i7 920 already comes with a beastly cooler just to run 2.66Ghz at reasonable temps, and that's putting aside the fact that it carries a 130W TDP. Beyond that, Intel has already shown that they will milk every Mhz for twice what it's worth with the high-end i7 pricing. $1000? Really?? If you need that kind of power and you have that kind of money, you might as well just buy a damn server!

But I'll be real. The i7 is a great processor, the most powerful on the market, and certain very specific models are a good value, but on the whole Intel is losing to AMD's package approach. With better marketing (and smarter OEM's), the Dragon platform presents the absolute best solution for middle-class gamers around the world, who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty squeezing out power for pennies. And besides...

*Real men use real cores.*


----------



## Yukikaze (Jun 28, 2009)

aj28 said:


> Eh, that's questionable really. And besides, what are we measuring on, stock coolers or LN2? The i7 920 already comes with a beastly cooler just to run 2.66Ghz at reasonable temps, and that's putting aside the fact that it carries a 130W TDP.



That is hardly questionable. I can run my CPU at 4Ghz on air, and just about anyone with a D0 stepping i7 920 can do the same, with decent temperatures, on a 37$ cooler (Scythe Mugen 2). How many Phenom IIs that hit 4Ghz on air are there (The average seems to sit around the 3.7-3.8Ghz mark, or so, and the 955BE isn't really clocking better than the 940BE, is it ? To me it looks like AMD is creating higher clocked SKUs which do not neccessarily attain better overclocks in order to look faster) ? This is not to say that there are none, but there are definitely less. If we also remember that the i7 (And the Core 2) is more effective than the Phenom IIs clock for clock, the advantage becomes more evident. 

For my current 24/7 settings, my CPU, which is far from being the best 920 out there, needs 1.18v, and with the said 37$ cooler loads to the low 60 degrees C in very hot weather (Lowest ambient we see now is in the low 30 degrees C). I can also run 3.2Ghz at1.04v, which would be well attainable on the stock cooler - Since it is less volts than stock voltage on my chip (!) and sub 1.0v 3Ghz i7 920s aren't very rare.

Besides, aren't the higher end Phenom IIs, namely the 940 and 955, 125W TDP chips, and 5W aren't anything to get fussed over ?



aj28 said:


> Beyond that, Intel has already shown that they will milk every Mhz for twice what it's worth with the high-end i7 pricing. $1000? Really?? If you need that kind of power and you have that kind of money, you might as well just buy a damn server!



True, but the Extreme Edition CPUs are not meant to compete against AMD's Black Edition chips. The vanilla 920 does that just fine. I consider anyone buying the EEs as either nuts (not neccesarily in the bad way, actually), or simply rich enough to not care.



aj28 said:


> But I'll be real. The i7 is a great processor, the most powerful on the market, and certain very specific models are a good value, but on the whole Intel is losing to AMD's package approach. With better marketing (and smarter OEM's), the Dragon platform presents the absolute best solution for middle-class gamers around the world, who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty squeezing out power for pennies. And besides...



There is no argument there. The 710 and 720BE at their price points are very hard for Intel to beat (Currently, they aren't beat, at least not here). But the situation at the higher end of the spectrum is different. The i7 920 is priced well when compared to the higher end Phenom IIs, and the price of very, very good X58 motherboards is compared to the price of the higher end AM3 motherboards, at least here. Granted, you can build a Ph2 920 rig for cheaper by using a cheap motherboard, but if you're going that route, you might be better off with a 720BE altogether for a cheaper setup altogether.



aj28 said:


> *Real men use real cores.*



And much good does it do them ?

Now, before I am being accused of fanboyism. I am a fanboy of nothing. I recommend AMD builds several times a week, and I do not remember when I last recommended an Intel build which wasn't an i7 for someone of sufficient budget, or wasn't E5200+G31 based for people with next to no budget. Additionally, I was choosing between my current i7 920 and the Ph2 940 less than two months ago. I chose to go the i7 route, since it got me a platform that will happily run both SLI and CF and perform better while doing either, for under 100$ of difference back then. The difference hasn't grown since.

In the bottom line, Intel has nothing to compete against AMD's excellently priced triple-cores, but with the prices of the i7 920 being what they are, AMD has a very tough fight on their hands. This is not to say that Intel isn't losing ground, it probably is (But not according to the Steam HW survey), but not due to AMD's high-end chips. I do think that Intel is somewhat neglecting the "mainstream" for the past few months, since they are focusing on their Lynnfields, and it might cost them more than they have planned for. On the other hand, Lynnfield based CPUs might give AMD a sound beating come September. Time will tell.


----------



## snakeoil (Jun 28, 2009)

Yukikaze said:


> For my current 24/7 settings, my CPU, which is far from being the best 920 out there, needs 1.18v, and with the said 37$ cooler loads to the low 60 degrees C in very hot weather (Lowest ambient we see now is in the low 30 degrees C). I can also run 3.2Ghz at1.04v, which would be well attainable on the stock cooler - Since it is less volts than stock voltage on my chip (!) and sub 1.0v 3Ghz i7 920s aren't very rare.
> .



so you have a core i7 that doesn't overheat and is not powerhungry, great, you should read the core i7 reviews in newegg where 50% percent at least complain about the heat, probably those people got the lemons

one of many
''Cons: Doesn't have a truly unlocked core multiplier. I can't get mine above 21x. I heard the i7 965 has a completely unlocked multiplier (don't actually know).
The stock cooler is awful. With stock clocks, under full load its temps got up to 80+ degrees Celsius.''

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202


----------



## Steevo (Jun 28, 2009)

I built a fully capable dual core 45W 2.6Ghz AMD machine with well endowed video in the northbridge for less than $600, including XP Pro and a 19" monitor.


Comparing a intel cpu/board for heat production and power efficency to power is like a pinto running with vettes.


----------



## Yukikaze (Jun 28, 2009)

snakeoil said:


> so you have a core i7 that doesn't overheat and is not powerhungry, great, you should read the core i7 reviews in newegg where 50% percent at least complain about the heat, probably those people got the lemons
> 
> one of many
> ''Cons: Doesn't have a truly unlocked core multiplier. I can't get mine above 21x. I heard the i7 965 has a completely unlocked multiplier (don't actually know).
> ...



If someone bought the 920 expecting an unlocked multiplier.....well... 

And yes, this is all true, they are hot chips. And still, there are more i7s hitting 4Ghz on air than Phenoms, at least if this board and the reviews are any measure.


----------



## Kitkat (Jun 28, 2009)

Yukikaze said:


> If someone bought the 920 expecting an unlocked multiplier.....well...
> 
> And yes, this is all true, they are hot chips. And still, there are more i7s hitting 4Ghz on air than Phenoms, at least if this board and the reviews are any measure.



No, no one buys the second i7 when they can get the first and the 3rd cost too much. So theres only really one most ppl will be @ 4 on, 920. Now 3/4 amd phenom IIs (within the reach of more buyers) can do it on air with a good board that cost way less. 955 965 910 945 (720 lol if u can stop blue screening or have good ram) I hit 4.4 last night just screwing around on Crosshair III. allso on boards Check out CDs clocks in the forums he seems to get there prety easy on other boards, Lots of amd "reviews tend use lower ram that no one wants to read about and stock coolers or the they just cant OC an amd chip? who knows. When u get home with 1600s seems to be a diff story. Im sure when u read reviews abut 965 "they could only manage 3.8"


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 28, 2009)

snakeoil said:


> ''Cons: Doesn't have a truly unlocked core multiplier. I can't get mine above 21x. I heard the i7 965 has a completely unlocked multiplier (don't actually know).
> The stock cooler is awful. With stock clocks, under full load its temps got up to 80+ degrees Celsius.''
> 
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16819115202



Erm 920's were never designed with an unlocked multiplier. Whereas the 965 is an extreme edition which does have the multiplier unlocked but costs about £800.


----------



## Imsochobo (Jun 28, 2009)

Yukikaze said:


> That is hardly questionable. I can run my CPU at 4Ghz on air, and just about anyone with a D0 stepping i7 920 can do the same, with decent temperatures, on a 37$ cooler (Scythe Mugen 2). How many Phenom IIs that hit 4Ghz on air are there (The average seems to sit around the 3.7-3.8Ghz mark, or so, and the 955BE isn't really clocking better than the 940BE, is it ? To me it looks like AMD is creating higher clocked SKUs which do not neccessarily attain better overclocks in order to look faster) ? This is not to say that there are none, but there are definitely less. If we also remember that the i7 (And the Core 2) is more effective than the Phenom IIs clock for clock, the advantage becomes more evident.
> 
> For my current 24/7 settings, my CPU, which is far from being the best 920 out there, needs 1.18v, and with the said 37$ cooler loads to the low 60 degrees C in very hot weather (Lowest ambient we see now is in the low 30 degrees C). I can also run 3.2Ghz at1.04v, which would be well attainable on the stock cooler - Since it is less volts than stock voltage on my chip (!) and sub 1.0v 3Ghz i7 920s aren't very rare.
> 
> ...




expect a revision change on PHII and we will maybe see a 975 985 995 
Youre right about the tricores, those bring value like nothing else Well, if intel makes a dualcore with HT stuff can change(Low price, good performance, low tpd),but ATI pushes prices like never before, there is one videocard, ONE that is close to ati's pricing and thats the GTX260, in all other price segments, there is no other way that the ati way.
AMD is making greater and greater platforms, and trying to secure some market share, cause stuff is about to become harsh out there with intel going in with graphics!(which i reccon will suck until 2012!) and then be acceptable, takes time to jump on that stuff i guess.
Tricore + 4890 4850 4770 4830 4730 4670.... does nvidia/intel build have anything to match those cards in performance/price ? i cant see it in my country, nor UK.


----------



## trt740 (Jun 28, 2009)

Guys the AMD chips are great and do have enough power for just about anything but they don't compare at all to overclocked I7 chips, I've owned them both and it is not close. This is a dumb arguement, since the AM3 were never ment to compete with the I7 chips. However, what is unreal is that they can exceed or reach similar performance to a stock I7 speeds at a fraction of the cost while using DDr2. AMD chips are very good and much more cost effective than their intel cousins but they are not faster.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Jun 28, 2009)

> but they are not faster



which is all that matters to some ppl


----------



## tastegw (Jun 28, 2009)

trt740 said:


> Guys the AMD chips are great and do have enough power for just about anything but they don't compare at all to overclocked I7 chips, I've owned them both and it is not close. This is a dumb arguement, since the AM3 were never ment to compete with the I7 chips. However, what is unreal is that they can exceed or reach similar performance to a stock I7 speeds at a fraction of the cost while using DDr2. AMD chips are very good and much more cost effective than their intel cousins but they are not faster.



i second this!

ive had the pII 940,  and my i7 920 @ stock is faster than my phenom was @ 3.75

AMD can pull out a 4.0GHz phenom, and it would still perform below the cheapest i7 chip.



snakeoil said:


> overheating core i7 can't ramp up speed
> 
> the overheating core i7 can't increase stock speed beyond 3.3, overheats too much because of   hyperthreading, phenom II is power efficient and stays cool, which gives room for increasing stock speed using stock cooler
> 
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=26915&stc=1&d=1246140427



a i7 920 can be overclocked from 3.4-3.8 on stock voltages,  and you can turn off hyperthreading if you really wanted to.
and one more thing, the temps from both my phenom and my i7 are almost identical.... 30ish idle, 55-60 load.


----------



## snakeoil (Jun 28, 2009)

tastegw said:


> i second this!
> 
> ive had the pII 940,  and my i7 920 @ stock is faster than my phenom was @ 3.75
> 
> AMD can pull out a 4.0GHz phenom, and it would still perform below the cheapest i7 chip.









i think you dont believe what you are saying


----------



## tastegw (Jun 28, 2009)

snakeoil said:


> http://forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=26927&stc=1&d=1246214582
> 
> i think you dont believe what you are saying








not asking you to believe me, i was just telling you the facts that are true to my two cpu's.

i no longer have the phenom, but its benchmarks results when overclocked to 3.7 are just below the i7 @ stock.

a small sample of a vantage bench,
both chips @ 3.7-3.8





need i say more.


----------



## Kitkat (Jun 28, 2009)

sure there not faster regaurdless... a statement was made about 4ghz (its self) lol that i found to be untrue i just gave 2 cent of truth


----------



## erocker (Jun 28, 2009)

There are plenty of other threads to have your AMD vs. Intel debates. This news story is not one of them.

Thanks.


----------



## Kitkat (Jun 28, 2009)

erocker said:


> There are plenty of other threads to have your AMD vs. Intel debates. This news story is not one of them.
> 
> Thanks.



AMD anouncemnts always bring out the best in everyone Intel and AMD its not a debate they we just comparing. Its imposible not to cause its the only thing we can , that is until nvidia releases that chip they deny exist


----------



## snakeoil (Jun 28, 2009)

Kitkat said:


> AMD anouncemnts always bring out the best in everyone Intel and AMD its not a debate they we just comparing. Its imposible not to cause its the only thing we can , that is until nvidia releases that chip they deny exist




imagine an nvidia cpu, probably cuad core 970 gtx ultra, ja, ja,ja i dont want even to imagine that,  with intel is enough (we dont need more bad guys)


----------



## Kitkat (Jun 29, 2009)

snakeoil said:


> imagine an nvidia cpu, probably cuad core 970 gtx ultra, ja, ja,ja i dont want even to imagine that,  with intel is enough (we dont need more bad guys)



lmao


----------



## Wile E (Jun 29, 2009)

snakeoil said:


> overheating core i7 can't ramp up speed
> 
> the overheating core i7 can't increase stock speed beyond 3.3, overheats too much because of   hyperthreading, phenom II is power efficient and stays cool, which gives room for increasing stock speed using stock cooler
> 
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=26915&stc=1&d=1246140427



That is the biggest load of crap I have seen. We have members here well above 4Ghz on air on their i7's.

Do you ever post anything true about intel, or just continually spout fanboy bs propaganda?

Quit being a troll.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 29, 2009)

tastegw said:


> http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr17/tastegw/twins.jpg
> 
> not asking you to believe me, i was just telling you the facts that are true to my two cpu's.
> 
> ...



thats one benchmark not exactly tell all sorta tale with that throw a second VGA card on both rebench and tell us all the scores. you will notice the 940BE all of a sudden catch back up thats called a better chipset and it does weird things like work better.

also everyone knows that clock for clock i7 beats phenom II thats a given. just leave it there and move on a 3.4ghz phenom II will beat a 2.66ghz i7 in just about everything there is no if's, no and's, no but's. if you would like you can run that one rendering bench were i7 might skim by in the lead but i doubt it.




Wile E said:


> That is the biggest load of crap I have seen. We have members here well above 4Ghz on air on their i7's.
> 
> Do you ever post anything true about intel, or just continually spout fanboy bs propaganda?
> 
> Quit being a troll.



hmm didn't overheat last time i clocked one up











not exactly a godlike air cooler either


----------



## Wile E (Jun 29, 2009)

cdawall said:


> thats one benchmark not exactly tell all sorta tale with that throw a second VGA card on both rebench and tell us all the scores. you will notice the 940BE all of a sudden catch back up thats called a better chipset and it does weird things like work better.
> 
> also everyone knows that clock for clock i7 beats phenom II thats a given. just leave it there and move on a 3.4ghz phenom II will beat a 2.66ghz i7 in just about everything there is no if's, no and's, no but's. if you would like you can run that one rendering bench were i7 might skim by in the lead but i doubt it.



Yeah, but if current pricing is any indication, the i7 will actually be cheaper at this point.

And have you proven your scaling theory yet? Because I see Intel has the top 15 spots in Vantage on the Orb, and the top 14 in 06. I don't think your scaling theory holds water cd.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 29, 2009)

Wile E said:


> Yeah, but if current pricing is any indication, the i7 will actually be cheaper at this point.
> 
> And have you proven your scaling theory yet? Because I see Intel has the top 15 spots in Vantage on the Orb, and the top 14 in 06. I don't think your scaling theory holds water cd.



the i7's have more clocks to them than AMD can scale thru however me and freaksavior have a box of VGA cards waiting for free time


----------



## btarunr (Jun 29, 2009)

cdawall said:


> hmm didn't overheat last time i clocked one up
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/090621/4246 i7.jpg
> 
> ...



Is that your setup?


----------



## Wile E (Jun 29, 2009)

cdawall said:


> the i7's have more clocks to them than AMD can scale thru however me and freaksavior have a box of VGA cards waiting for free time



I still wanna see, if no no other reason than a good scientific comparo. (Hey, those are always fun. lol) But I'm starting to think the issue was possibly from immature BIOSes in the Intel camp. i7 made a huge surge forward in 3Dmarks in the past month or so.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 29, 2009)

btarunr said:


> Is that your setup?



well i wouldn't call it my setup as much as i used a certain setup for an extended period of time


http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=97259



Wile E said:


> I still wanna see, if no no other reason than a good scientific comparo. (Hey, those are always fun. lol) But I'm starting to think the issue was possibly from immature BIOSes in the Intel camp. i7 made a huge surge forward in 3Dmarks in the past month or so.



if it happens it happens no hate from me i just know what i saw so far and more cards seem to work better on AMD however when you throw an ungodly faster cpu in the mix AMD tends to water down a bit


----------



## tastegw (Jun 29, 2009)

> thats one benchmark not exactly tell all sorta tale with that throw a second VGA card on both rebench and tell us all the scores. you will notice the 940BE all of a sudden catch back up thats called a better chipset and it does weird things like work better.
> 
> also everyone knows that clock for clock i7 beats phenom II thats a given. just leave it there and move on a 3.4ghz phenom II will beat a 2.66ghz i7 in just about everything there is no if's, no and's, no but's. if you would like you can run that one rendering bench were i7 might skim by in the lead but i doubt it.



im sorry but *atleast my* phenom 940 clocked @ 3.7 didnt beat any of my stock i7 benches that i did.  the only win the phenom got was when it had my gtx 280's physx, while i do not have physx in my i7 rig.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 29, 2009)

tastegw said:


> im sorry but *atleast my* phenom 940 clocked @ 3.7 didnt beat any of my stock i7 benches that i did.  the only win the phenom got was when it had my gtx 280's physx, while i do not have physx in my i7 rig.



did you run anything other than 3dmark vantage?

cause there are about a dozen benchmarks right here that show the phenom II and core i7 920 trading blows


http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/260318-28-phenom-benchmarks


skip to the gaming benchmarks and watch it trade blows if not beat the i7 in a couple of spots

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3551&p=1

yet your 3.7gh phenom II couldn't keep up with a stock 2.66ghz i7 when the 3.2ghz stock clocked 955BE can?


----------



## tastegw (Jun 29, 2009)

perhaps that is the difference from ddr3 1600 to ddr2 800


----------



## snakeoil (Jun 29, 2009)

tastegw said:


> perhaps that is the difference from ddr3 1600 to ddr2 800



wrong, the difference between phenom II ddr2 and ddr3 is 5% maximum , why dont you accept that what you said is wrong. and move on please.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 29, 2009)

tastegw said:


> perhaps that is the difference from ddr3 1600 to ddr2 800



nope the first set of benchmarks used DDR2


----------



## tastegw (Jun 29, 2009)

snakeoil said:


> wrong, the difference between phenom II ddr2 and ddr3 is 5% maximum , why dont you accept that what you said is wrong. and move on please.



snake,  the whole reason i even posted here was for your nonsense



snakeoil said:


> overheating core i7 can't ramp up speed
> 
> the overheating core i7 can't increase stock speed beyond 3.3, overheats too much because of   hyperthreading, phenom II is power efficient and stays cool, which gives room for increasing stock speed using stock cooler
> 
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=26915&stc=1&d=1246140427



i have said it once, and ill say it again, my phenom overclocked was still a lesser cpu than my i7 @ stock.

im not the one trying to be a fanboy, i have owned 3 different AMD systems in the last year.


----------



## Assassin48 (Jun 29, 2009)

it was probably a bad overclocked

or hes comparing a lesser gpu with a higher end gpu on the i7 when doing the vantage run


----------



## tastegw (Jun 29, 2009)

Assassin48 said:


> it was probably a bad overclocked
> 
> or hes comparing a lesser gpu with a higher end gpu on the i7 when doing the vantage run



phenom had a gtx 280 by its side,

i7 has a 4770.

i wasnt compairing gpu scores or total scores.


----------



## snakeoil (Jun 29, 2009)

tastegw said:


> phenom had a gtx 280 by its side,
> 
> i7 has a 4770.
> 
> i wasnt compairing gpu scores or total scores.



give it up, nobody believes what you said not even you, if you want to learn go to review sites and learn a little. and then speak based on reality , and move on


----------



## tastegw (Jun 29, 2009)

coming from a guy that said "overheating core i7 can't ramp up speed"
thats funny


----------



## Meizuman (Jun 29, 2009)

IIRC, AMD had worse CPU scores in 3DMark with Nvidia GPU.


----------



## Flyordie (Jun 29, 2009)

Anyone else heard that AMD plans on labeling the 965 a Black Edition after all and dropping the 955?


----------



## n-ster (Jun 30, 2009)

perhaps something was wrong with your tests tastegw, but obviously get are false... without more specifics, we won't be able to tell you, but there is no way a PII 940 at 3.7 doesn't beat a stock i7... indeed, it seems you have ignored the proof cdawall provided...

Anyone know how powerful the PII 965 can be? and how about that new chipset...


----------



## trt740 (Jun 30, 2009)

snakeoil said:


> give it up, nobody believes what you said not even you, if you want to learn go to review sites and learn a little. and then speak based on reality , and move on



I believe him and  hes not wrong you are the phenom II will beat a I7 in something but 90 percent of the time it won't, a core 2 duo maybe but not a I7 and I have had a PII 940 and a ES 945 and they cannot touch these I7 chips unless they are overclocked above the I7 stock clocks by about 800 to 900 mghz. The PhII is about as fast as a Q9550 at the same clock speeds maybe a little faster.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 30, 2009)

trt740 said:


> I believe him and  hes not wrong you are the phenom II will beat a I7 in something but 90 percent of the time it won't, a core 2 duo maybe but not a I7 and I have had a PII 940 and a ES 945 and they cannot touch these I7 chips unless they are overclocked above the I7 stock clocks by about 800 to 900 mghz. The PhII is about as fast as a Q9550 at the same clock speeds maybe a little faster.



thats the thing trt the phenom was at 3.7ghz and he said his i7 at stock 2.66ghz was still beating it  i can think of one or two apps that would happen in and one of them is super pi


----------



## trt740 (Jun 30, 2009)

cdawall said:


> thats the thing trt the phenom was at 3.7ghz and he said his i7 at stock 2.66ghz was still beating it  i can think of one or two apps that would happen in and one of them is super pi



Even at stock the I7 would be close to a PHII ddr2 system at 3.7ghz but I can think of a few things a PH II would beat it one is MP3 conversion. Remember a true I7 920 for all intensive puropses is really 2.8 ghz not 2.6ghz because of turbo.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 30, 2009)

trt740 said:


> Even at stock the I7 would be close to a PHII ddr2 system at 3.7ghz but I can think of a few things a PH II would beat it one is MP3 conversion. Remember a true I7 920 for all intensive puropses is really 2.8 ghz not 2.6ghz because of turbo.



thats still 900mhz to the AMD side and DDR2 1066 cas5 can keep pretty close to DDR3

i can think of one and thats 3Dmark which he compared otherwise we wouldn't have seen so many records on AMD's until the D0 Xeons of course lol 5.5ghz i7 is insane


----------



## trt740 (Jun 30, 2009)

cdawall said:


> thats still 900mhz to the AMD side and DDR2 1066 cas5 can keep pretty close to DDR3
> 
> i can think of one and thats 3Dmark which he compared otherwise we wouldn't have seen so many records on AMD's until the D0 Xeons of course lol 5.5ghz i7 is insane



From what I see a AMD chip at 3.8 with fast DDR3 would be a match for a I7 920 with fast DDR3 but even at 3.4 ghz (which is a very tiny overclock) it would kill the AMD chip in all but a few synthetic Applications / benchmarks.. In games the AMD chip would do very well and in the real world I doubt you could ever tell them a part. The AMD chips for real world use are just as fast. If you didn't tell a person which one was powered by which you wouldn't know. Think of the new AMD chips as lightning fast and then think of the new Intel chips as lightening fast plus 20 percent (in benches) both are lightening fast. In my opinion lightening fast is lightening fast.  buy which ever is cheaper and spend the rest on your GPU, because both brands are fast enough to un bottleneck even the mighty 295 gtx


----------



## cdawall (Jun 30, 2009)

trt740 said:


> From what I see a AMD chip at 3.8 with fast DDR3 would be a match for a I7 920 with fast DDR3 but even at 3.4 ghz (which is a very tiny overclock) it would kill the AMD chip in all but a few synthetic Applications / benchmarks.. In games the AMD chip would do very well and in the real world I doubt you could ever tell them a part. The AMD chips for real world use are just as fast. If you didn't tell a person which one was powered by which you wouldn't know. Think of the new AMD chips as lightning fast and then think of the new Intel chips as lightening fast plus 20 percent (in benches) both are lighting fast. In my opinion lighting fast is lightening fast.



true oh well guess i can't complain to much i'm running my poor little X4 910@3.7ghz not bad for a stock clock of 2.6ghz

god if you read my specs it looks like i don't know anything but ATI and AMD lol whats sad is i like NV better but get this stuff so much cheaper


----------



## trt740 (Jun 30, 2009)

cdawall said:


> true oh well guess i can't complain to much i'm running my poor little X4 910@3.7ghz not bad for a stock clock of 2.6ghz



and thats very fast.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 30, 2009)

snakeoil said:


> you heard what eidairaman1 said, get out.



last time i checked, you aren't a moderator. Please don't act like one.


----------



## tastegw (Jun 30, 2009)

the reason im ignoring that review that was given, is i have/had the stuff. for all we know they were running the ddr3 1600 ram @ stock (1066), and that is alot slower than it would be at its rated speed.

but i was able to find one of my phenom's old scores for '05, but it was with the phenom @ 3.5...

so to be fair i benched my i7 with ram running a slow 1066.

here is the results.






thats a 1000mhz advantage by the phenom, and it still ate the dust.

i dont know why some of you are angry at me for actually showing and stating my facts.
there is no better review than your own.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 30, 2009)

what 3dmark is that?

if possible, find us a benchie of something thats not totally useless... like a game.


----------



## Wile E (Jun 30, 2009)

Mussels said:


> what 3dmark is that?
> 
> if possible, find us a benchie of something thats not totally useless... like a game.



A game is totally useless to use to compare cpu power. He's showing the difference in cpu power, not gaming.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 30, 2009)

Wile E said:


> A game is totally useless to use to compare cpu power. He's showing the difference in cpu power, not gaming.



thats fine but compare the same GPU because that can and will skew the hell out of the results


----------



## Yukikaze (Jun 30, 2009)

cdawall said:


> thats fine but compare the same GPU because that can and will skew the hell out of the results



Well, not if you are comparing the CPU results (PhysX aside, but the 920 didn't have a PhysX able card anyway)...


----------



## cdawall (Jun 30, 2009)

Yukikaze said:


> Well, not if you are comparing the CPU results (PhysX aside, but the 920 didn't have a PhysX able card anyway)...



look closer at the scores one is on vista 32 the other on vista 64.


----------



## Yukikaze (Jun 30, 2009)

cdawall said:


> look closer at the scores one is on vista 32 the other on vista 64.



I was under the impression that would have an absolutely minute effect, if any, and definitely not one sufficient to compensate for something like 1Ghz of clock advantage. Am I wrong ?


----------



## cdawall (Jun 30, 2009)

Yukikaze said:


> I was under the impression that would have an absolutely minute effect, if any, and definitely not one sufficient to compensate for something like 1Ghz of clock advantage. Am I wrong ?



yea it makes a pretty big difference


----------



## Mussels (Jun 30, 2009)

Yukikaze said:


> I was under the impression that would have an absolutely minute effect, if any, and definitely not one sufficient to compensate for something like 1Ghz of clock advantage. Am I wrong ?



the address space limitations could drastically affect the score. I dont know if it DOES with these programs, but its certainly within the realm of possibility.

You're talking a different OS with different drivers anyway - doesnt matter if they're the same version number, there can be differences between x86 and x64 we dont know about.


----------



## tastegw (Jun 30, 2009)

cdawall said:


> look closer at the scores one is on vista 32 the other on vista 64.




both systems are on 64-bit vista.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 30, 2009)

tastegw said:


> wow,  you do it again, speaking out your rear.
> 
> both systems are on 64-bit vista.



no i read the benchmark page the AMD only see's 3840mb of ram while the intl see's 6144mb either you lost 256MB of ram to thin air or its on 32bit vista


----------



## tastegw (Jun 30, 2009)

cdawall said:


> no i read the benchmark page the AMD only see's 3840mb of ram while the intl see's 6144mb either you lost 256MB of ram to thin air or its on 32bit vista



that was just how it was read.  I can assure you both were 64-bit.

here is the link to my 940's vantage score

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=780146

check for yourself

same ram was used.


----------



## trt740 (Jun 30, 2009)

This whole discussion is useless in the real world you would be hard pressed to tell them apart . I have had both trust me they are both screaming fast end this already. For real world use one doesn't hold a giant advantage over the other. If I had a AM2/ AM3 rig I wouldn't sell it to buy a I7 rig  it's a waste of time. I know this because I did it. Buy what cheaper or whats the easiest upgrade path.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 1, 2009)

trt740 said:


> This whole discussion is useless in the real world you would be hard pressed to tell them apart . I have had both trust me they are both screaming fast end this already. For real world use one doesn't hold a giant advantage over the other. If I had a AM2/ AM3 rig I wouldn't sell it to buy a I7 rig  it's a waste of time. I know this because I did it. Buy what cheaper or whats the easiest upgrade path.



No thanks. I'll buy the fastest.  I would see a difference, as I do a lot of H.264 transcoding.


----------



## trt740 (Jul 1, 2009)

Wile E said:


> No thanks. I'll buy the fastest.  I would see a difference, as I do a lot of H.264 transcoding.



WILE can you use a gpu for that? (pardon my ignorance) and is it really gonna be that much faster even with a 955 at 3.9ghz?


----------



## Wile E (Jul 1, 2009)

trt740 said:


> WILE can you use a gpu for that? (pardon my ignorance) and is it really gonna be that much faster even with a 955 at 3.9ghz?



The GPU encoders are fast, but lack quality, and many of the advanced filters I sometimes need to use.

And yeah, it makes a rather large difference in time consumed, actually.

But, admittedly, I'm in a minority. To 90% of everyone out there, there's little difference right now. 

But another thing to consider, the differences will be greater as time wears on, and the systems start getting long in tooth. Say 5 years from now, I bet the difference would be noticeable. And the people that wait long times between purchases are the biggest buyers of systems, I do believe.

Just playing a little Devils Advocate, btw. You are correct for the most part. I just like people to see as many viewpoints as possible. Most of the time, only gaming performance is mentioned on this site. I just like to point out that there's more to it than that.

There's nothing wrong with either system. I still would like to get my hands on a Phenom II setup, but it makes no sense for me to do so, seeing as I have this Yorky setup. The next logical step for me is LGA1366, and then move this Yorky to secondary  machine duty. Right now, my secondary rig is a DFI NF4 board w/ a 6400+, 8800GT 1GB and 2x2GB 1100MHz ram. Love that machine. If I had a Phenom capable AMD board, my 6400+ would have already been replaced by a 720BE or 920 in the secondary machine.


----------

