Phenom II X4 940 Tested at Stock Speeds

[Melvis]

Encode a movie: aren't encoding progs multi threaded?

Using the same settings, encode any movie with both procs @ same speed and check the result.

Umm i think so, i just did the other day a movie that was a AVI file and transcoded to all VOB files, and it was using all four cores for this, and i was surprised it could utilize all four cores been such a old program. Shame i don't have a Q6600 to test along side the 9950 BE that i have at the moment. All i can say is that it did the movie a good 35% faster then my FX-57 and was only using 30% of all the CPU's

SO yea that's what we need same set up and a program that utilizes all four cores and at the same clock speed, i agree with you there

 

[Woody112]

You'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.

 

[HTC]

I 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

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.

 

[fullinfusion]

The 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

 

[ShadowFold]

well heres a price from a supplier here in Canada for the P II ... a little spendee id say..
http://www.infonec.com/site/main.php?module=catalog&catID=1585

That's 295$ USD.

 

[fullinfusion]

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.

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

 

[fullinfusion]

That's 295$ USD.

about $ 95 dollars to much

 

[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$...

 

[wolf2009]

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

do this x264 HD benchmark

http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=520

 

[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?

about $ 95 dollars to much

+1

 

[PaulieG]

That'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.

 

[fullinfusion]

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$...

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

 

[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...

 

[fullinfusion]

do this x264 HD benchmark

http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=520

ok ill be back soon with results

 

[PaulieG]

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?



+1

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?

 

[Melvis]

That's 295$ USD.

gezzz that's a good price 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 =/

 

[von kain]

Looking forward to a proper review.

true plus since is not in everyones hands wait until that happens

 

[miloshs]

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?

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 ...

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

 

[fullinfusion]

ok ill be back soon with results

so i got it to run but what exactly do i click on to run the test?

 

[Woody112]

so 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.

 

[miloshs]

so i got it to run but what exactly do i click on to run the test?

LOL, ownage

Dont give up mate

 

[lemonadesoda]

I dont get it. If you go to http://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:

http://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.

 

[Melvis]

Oh no, my scores are right. My old AGP system puts this new Phenom2 to shame:

http://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.

 

[Wile E]

Guys, 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.

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.

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.

 

[freaksavior]

question?

Does super pi prove speed differences?

if yes then I dont like where they are headed.