Tuesday, December 23rd 2008

Phenom II X4 940 Tested at Stock Speeds

by
btarunr
 Discuss (135 Comments)
BreakTheLimt.net, a Malaysian hardware portal tested the Phenom II X4 940 at its stock speed of 3.00 GHz, and posted a sting of benchmark results of the said chip. It was tested on a platform consisting of a MSI DKA790GX Platinum motherboard, with 2 GB of DDR2 1066 MHz memory and a ASUS Radeon HD 4870 TOP graphics card. All components were set to run at stock speeds. The chip was put through Super Pi 1M and 32M, Cinebench R10, PiFast Multithreaded, WPrime 1.5, Aquamark and 3DMark06.
Source: BreakTheLimit.net

Related News

Add your own comment

135 Comments on Phenom II X4 940 Tested at Stock Speeds

#51
Woody112
HTCYou're like comparing apple juice to lemon juice in terms of acidity: P II voltage is very different the Intel / previous AMD procs.



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

Did the reviewers make temps screenies?



This is why temps on P II are better then Intel / older AMD procs.
Voltage is voltage. The only difference between intel and amd is in how its used and which architecture is using it more efficiently, and efficiency is what I'm looking at. So if it takes more voltage to operate at 3ghz then it's not more efficent than a processor running at the same speed with less voltage. Temp means nothing when it comes to this as architecture plays a big part. Good example more transistors more resistance= more heat.
Posted on Reply
#52
HTC
fullinfusionI use Any video converter to encode my movies... there you can select 0-8 cores for encoding... if its selected 0-8 before the encode is started say 4 for AMD its wicked fast... id love to see it in action with the I7 and set the encode cores to 8 :toast:
The test can be done, with regards to i7, with and without HT.

As long as the speed is the same and the encoding settings are as well, it should give us a more accurate picture of how good / bad a P II is VS i7.
Posted on Reply
#53
fullinfusion
Vanguard Beta Tester
ShadowFoldThe Phenom II's have ACC built in. The reason SB600 sucked at OC'ing is because it was missing ACC and a few other features than are built into the PII's.
ACC blah blah.... i had the 600sb mobo and went up to the 750sb mobo... ACC is so mis-understood... i can only get this cpu to run the same clocks as the 600sb system with ACC off... if i wana bump the cpu volt to 1.62v and set ACC to +4 than yeah it works but not very stable.... all i know is i should have saved my money rather than buying this new mobo and went for the I7 setup..:shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#55
fullinfusion
Vanguard Beta Tester
HTCThe test can be done, with regards to i7, with and without HT.

As long as the speed is the same and the encoding settings are as well, it should give us a more accurate picture of how good / bad a P II is VS i7.
well if someone wants to post a link to download a video to convert id be glad to run it against the I7 @ 3.01GHz just to see how quick the I7 is.... thats a true test imo cpu against cpu

This might settle some ppl down lol
Posted on Reply
#56
fullinfusion
Vanguard Beta Tester
ShadowFoldThat's 295$ USD.
about $ 95 dollars to much :roll:
Posted on Reply
#57
ShadowFold
I don't think that's right tho. My guess is it will be 250$ at the most. I don't think AMD could afford to have it at 300$...
Posted on Reply
#58
Unregistered
fullinfusionwell if someone wants to post a link to download a video to convert id be glad to run it against the I7 @ 3.01GHz just to see how quick the I7 is.... thats a true test imo cpu against cpu

This might settle some ppl down lol
do this x264 HD benchmark

www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=520
Posted on Edit | Reply
#59
miloshs
295$ is a bit too much for my taste... i could live with 250$ (and thats if i succeed in selling my 9950 for at least 170-190$ since its still under warranty)... but 295$, hmmmm

920 is supposed to have locked multi?
fullinfusionabout $ 95 dollars to much
+1 :toast:
Posted on Reply
#60
PaulieG
ShadowFoldThat's 295$ USD.
Yes, and about right. The lower prices you guys are seeing is for quantity orders. 940 retail prices will be $275-$300 at launch. Which considering that performance is most likely sandwiched in between the Q9550 and Q9650, it's a good value, as I believe newegg still has the Q9550 at $319.
Posted on Reply
#61
fullinfusion
Vanguard Beta Tester
ShadowFoldI don't think that's right tho. My guess is it will be 250$ at the most. I don't think AMD could afford to have it at 300$...
I agree with ya there SF.... since its pre order it's likely a deposit that they'll give back as credit when the price has been finalized
Posted on Reply
#62
miloshs
^ Let us just hope youre right...

P.S. just tested my stock 9950, and its 20-ish % slower in 32M SP in relation to 940 from #1 post...
Posted on Reply
#64
PaulieG
miloshs295$ is a bit too much for my taste... i could live with 250$ (and thats if i succeed in selling my 9950 for at least 170-190$ since its still under warranty)... but 295$, hmmmm

920 is supposed to have locked multi?



+1 :toast:
You really have to consider the performance to price point. Please read my post above. I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here, but please remember that the 9950 was close to $270 at launch, wasn't it?
Posted on Reply
#65
Melvis
ShadowFoldThat's 295$ USD.
gezzz that's a good price :p cost me $314 for a 9950 BE just a week or so ago :shadedshu

I hate to think how much it will be here then =/
Posted on Reply
#66
von kain
Woody112Looking forward to a proper review.:toast:
true plus since is not in everyones hands wait until that happens
Posted on Reply
#67
miloshs
PauliegYou really have to consider the performance to price point. Please read my post above. I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here, but please remember that the 9950 was close to $270 at launch, wasn't it?
I get what youre saying, no problem with that... im just claiming that its too much for me to buy it right as it starts selling :D...

The problem is if i see a CPU that retails at 300$ in the US... i have great odds that it will be close to 300 euro here... so thats a bit too much :twitch:
Posted on Reply
#68
fullinfusion
Vanguard Beta Tester
fullinfusionok ill be back soon with results
so i got it to run but what exactly do i click on to run the test?
Posted on Reply
#69
Woody112
fullinfusionso i got it to run but what exactly do i click on to run the test?
I just got it to run had to extract the files to a separate folder then open the folder and click on the benchmark link. Dos box will open asking you to type in a name for that run. do so then click enter. It will make 4 runs with 2 passes each then it will ask you if you want to run the newer version I pressed Y for yes and it ran it again, after it finishes just hit enter then it will open up a page with your results.
Posted on Reply
#70
miloshs
fullinfusionso i got it to run but what exactly do i click on to run the test?
LOL, ownage :nutkick:

Dont give up mate :rockout:
Posted on Reply
#71
lemonadesoda
trabanomI dont get it. If you go to www.yougamers.com/hardware/stats/3dmark06/7days/ you will see Q6600 have done 8161. Phenom II X4 did 15457, 47% more with only 20% more clock. Something is not right with you score.
Oh no, my scores are right. My old AGP system puts this new Phenom2 to shame:

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

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

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

I was really expecting more from AMD. This thing is going to have to be priced cheap, or be extremely low power consumption, otherwise, there is no reason to go with it.
Posted on Reply
#72
Melvis
lemonadesodaOh no, my scores are right. My old AGP system puts this new Phenom2 to shame:

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

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

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

I was really expecting more from AMD. This thing is going to have to be priced cheap, or be extremely low power consumption, otherwise, there is no reason to go with it.
This test has never been AMD's strong point, never ever has, its like putting a intel up against AMD in the memory test, AMD will always win, so i cant see this benchmark much to go on.
Posted on Reply
#73
Wile E
Power User
ShadowFoldGuys, these take voltage better than Intel chips. 1.3v is like 1.2v on an Intel CPU.
That's not how it works. Besides, these haven't been out nearly long enough to determin what kind of voltages they can handle reliably. Generally, when you are on the same basic architecture, die shrinks reduce a chips ability to take voltage.
Woody112Voltage is voltage. The only difference between intel and amd is in how its used and which architecture is using it more efficiently, and efficiency is what I'm looking at. So if it takes more voltage to operate at 3ghz then it's not more efficent than a processor running at the same speed with less voltage. Temp means nothing when it comes to this as architecture plays a big part. Good example more transistors more resistance= more heat.
But you are forgetting that this includes an IMC, whereas the normal Core 2's don't. If you want to compqare voltage differences, you have to compare it to i7.
Posted on Reply
#74
freaksavior
To infinity ... and beyond!
question?

Does super pi prove speed differences?

if yes then I dont like where they are headed.

Posted on Reply
#75
farlex85
MelvisThis test has never been AMD's strong point, never ever has, its like putting a intel up against AMD in the memory test, AMD will always win, so i cant see this benchmark much to go on.
Which tests, he listed three. Actually, i7 easily beats Phenoms in memory benches, triple channel and qpi saw to that. Perhaps AMD can regain some ground when they release the AM3 boards, but I doubt they will reclaim that crown anytime soon.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 22nd, 2024 21:08 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts