...First, let's compare our subject the X4 975 to its closest competitor, what would be i5 750 (too bad we don't have i5 760 in our charts). By itself the Phenom II X4 975 has very acceptable power consumption output, but when you compare the load states with those of i5 750 you see a difference of ~ 35 W, and that's not a small difference for processors in same price segment (remember, we're just looking at power consumption rates here). It's simply not power efficient as competition. So, that thumb down bulletin was referring to that standpoint, I have updated it a bit in review. Hope that makes it more clear why it's under thumbs down.
I don't disagree. I suppose what my thinking about this point would be as follows:
The sort of person that chooses to buy this particular processor, (AMD's quad-core flagship at 3.6GHz, rated at 125W, with the phrase
"Black Edition" prominently displayed on the box), is looking to kick butt and take names. They aren't too concerned with being "green" and things like "energy efficiency." That being said, I
do appreciate the fact that there are some alternatives out there that are both powerful
and use less power. They just don't fit into an AM2+/AM3 socket. AMD's "Stars" family is what it is, and I think it's a bit late in the game to nitpick over wattage. I believe we're in agreement in thinking the 975's power numbers aren't horrible.
Omega said:
Let's be honest here... we got lucky with our sample. Over 4.30 GHz with normal core voltages and mid range air cooling is VERY rare for Deneb cores. I've had almost every Deneb SKU runing overclocked speeds and most of them would hit ~3.90 GHz, some even less. Now I ask you this, if you're buying a Phenom II model, which you want to overclock and gain more out of it, but you're not a expert clocker, say you know just the basic stuff. Would you rather spend ~$200 and buy 975 model running 3.60 GHz then overclock it via multy to 3.90 GHz (x18 vs x19.5)... or, would you buy 955 BE model for ~$145 and change the multy from x16 to x19.5 and get completely the same thing? Now, you tell me, what practical value do you have from unlocked multiplier on a processor that is already overclocked to the roof? You know and I know, that buying an 975 model over 955 is just a matter of personal choice, or luxury/status statement if you will.
Again, I don't so much disagree as simply see this from another perspective. An unlocked multiplier, for me, is ALWAYS a plus, NEVER a negative. I didn't have any particular target regarding final clock speed in mind when I made my original comment, I simply fail to see how an unlocked multi should count in any way as a point
against this CPU. If we were discussing the old Athlon X2 6400+, (3.2GHz, 125W, 90nm process), I might be more inclined to agree that the unlocked multi might not prove all that helpful, but even in that case, I, personally, wouldn't criticize it's inclusion.
Seeing as AMD has gone from a 140W, 3.4GHz, 965 to this 125W, 3.6GHz, 975, who can say at this point what the typical overclock for this CPU will be? (Not to mention the influence of a particular motherboard.) If AMD has refined their fabrication process over the life of the Deneb series, and it seems obvious they have, perhaps +4.0GHz overclocks will be more common?
Omega said:
Those with expert overclocking skills will also look the other way, over to the blue side and Core i5 processors, which have considerably more headroom, both in clock frequencies and performance improvements. Where AMD's Phenom's end, Intel's Core i5 processors are just beginning.
Well, I would submit that there are a few people "with expert overclocking skills" who consciously choose to dabble on the AMD side of the fence, too. I have an i5 in my collection, so I'm well aware of it's reputation, both real and imagined. As I said in my original post, I'm not approaching this discussion from an Intel vs. AMD standpoint, but simply from the merits of this particular processor.
Omega said:
Phenom II X4 975 scores great in gaming benchmarks, but, again, against its closest rival it is slower, and if we were to add i5 760 to the mix it would be even slower. It's not that you can't do some serious gaming with Phenom, but it's just that there are better choices, few bucks more, yes, but in return you get much more than you'd get from Phenom II X4 975. Especially when you consider the implemented features that help boost gaming performance, power consumption levels when gaming, and overclocking and potential gains from it.
As for hardcore gamers, I had no ill intentions to anyone... in fact I had and probably will have some periods of my life when/where I could/will say for myself that I'm a hardcore gamer. And as such I know when I'm playing or will be playing my favorite game I'm mad about, I want me those frame rates to fly sky high. I NEVER want to see frame drops, or experience lags that could cause some kind of a mental breakdown (not that I'm that kind of a person
). Hardcore gamer wants the best CPU that will run his games flawlessly, both current and future games, and he will be much happier with a bit higher clocked Core i5/i7 processor than he would be with Phenom II X4 975. So yes, it's not the best choice for "hardcore" gamers.
Here, I would say we ARE at odds with one another. Your benchmark scores don't state if they are average or peak frame rates; I'm assuming they are averages. I get that the 1024 x 768 numbers are included to help expose CPU scaling rather than the effect of the HD 5850.
If we toss out the 1024 x 768 figures, only because no self-respecting PC gamer in 2011 would choose to play at that resolution, and focus on the more realistic 1680 X 1050 results, we see that the 975 is never more than 9fps slower than the i7, is never less than 60fps in any title, and actually comes in first in two of the tests.
I don't think those numbers would serve to "break the spell" of anyone playing those games. In fact, I'd say if you sat someone down to play these games where they couldn't see which platform they were using, it would be virtually impossible to tell the i7 and 975 apart. Without seeing the
minimum framerates, and this is
NOT meant as criticism of your testing methodology, this is the only conclusion I can come to. And, no, I would not be surprised whatsoever if the minimums with the i7 were superior to the 975.
Yes, there ARE a few games that are very CPU dependent, (most notably
Grand Theft Auto IV, for some reason), and there
will be a distinct delta between AMD's and Intel's heavyweights in these cases. But, thankfully, those games are far more the exception than the rule, and it isn't that they wouldn't be fully enjoyable on something in the 975-class.
Omega said:
...Don't forget that Core i5 2500K is almost in the same price segment, and i5 2400 is even cheaper... and those are very fast Sandy Bridge chips
Indeed, they are. They are wonderful products. But, the issue here is the Socket LGA1155 motherboards are often about as expensive as the processors themselves. And, no one is likely to have one just lying around, if you catch my meaning. As the 975 is intended for an existing motherboard-base, (and, a much less expensive one, at that), I'd say this falls under the realm of an apples-to-oranges comparison. I doubt that even AMD is trying to position the 975 as a legitimate alternative to SB.
Believe me, I appreciated and enjoyed your review and our discussion, and I respect your viewpoints. I guess I view the "target audience" for this particular CPU quite a bit more narrowly than you can afford to do as a reviewer.
