AMD Phenom II X4 Model 940 @ [H]

[evolucion8]

AMD should just give up and leave the cpu market for good, they are so far behind their chips, chipsets and everything else are USELESS TRASH, garbage, not worth the silicon they are printed on........

the ATI sides the only one doing "ok" and even there they are cheaping out by not following nvidia's lead with "one chip to rule them all" insted trying to force people into multi gpu configs.....what a crock.......

What a tantrum? Yeah, AMD should leave, so we can all pay thousand of dollars for a midrange CPU!!! If it wasn't because of the POS Phenom X2 9X00 series, we would still paying $300.00 for a CPU which would perform as a $150.00 CPU. If it wasn't because of the "ok" HD 48xx series, we would still paying $650 GTX 280, don't forget that it was it's introductory price. Competition is always good, so YOU should give up posting TRASH like that, is a waste of our energy, electricity and silicon shifting!!

 

[psyshack]

I wonder how this cpu would hold up against a old beat up Q6600?

 

[DeadSkull]

From the looks of it Q6600 will still dominate, especially if seriosly overclocked.

 

[DeadSkull]

i7 is the only way to go, and jesus how can you use that POS
X2 4200+ @ 2.7ghz (270x10)
Asus A8N5X -S939
ROFL, total trash but its AMD what do you expect, worthless peice of shit, when you pull that out you should burn it and thank god you have seen the light, Intel is the ONLY good cpu maker, all others are hack clones of things INTEL invents/creates.

Shouldnt you be either going to bed or going on another cod4 dm rampage, little boy?

 

[w1retap]

lol, it's always a bonus when little nubs join just so they can flame with massive fanboism.

 

[XamediX]

i7 is the only way to go, and jesus how can you use that POS
X2 4200+ @ 2.7ghz (270x10)
Asus A8N5X -S939
ROFL, total trash but its AMD what do you expect, worthless peice of shit, when you pull that out you should burn it and thank god you have seen the light, Intel is the ONLY good cpu maker, all others are hack clones of things INTEL invents/creates.

This system lasted 3+ years with nothing more than GPU updates and I play all my games maxxed out at 1680x1050 res on my 22in LCD. I built this system to last long and to be a bit future proof and it worked. I used the information from [H]'s reviews and forum postings and made what I think is a great investment.

But yea, didn't you just get in trouble for taking your sleeping mom's car to school and crashing it? How are you not grounded and using the internet?

 

[dmfg]

That said, I won't be buying a PII for a couple months until the prices settle down. But I will buy one, even if it is a loser. I personally found the language used certainly implied the writer had a bit of bias, regardless of whether it exists in reality or not.

This is probably not what you meant, but I think it would be absolutely awesome if Kyle's review actually made someone buy the P2 just to spite him for that review

Also I find it interesting how we seem to have separated into two camps, one of whom is arguing based on comparing the prices on stock CPUs at stock speeds, one of whom is not. Sure, this review probably isn't so useful for someone just looking to buy a CPU for a new computer he wants to run at stock speeds, but I'm guessing that guy is not the target audience for this review.

I mean scanning through the sigs of people who posted here, nobody at all is running at stock speeds. So why is there even a discussion about how CPUs compare in price/performance at stock speeds?

 

[SheepCake]

did you even RTFA?

clearly shows AMD=TRASH and has NO PLACE IN THE MARKET, they arent effecting intel at all, intel could just drop prices on the whole c2q line and watch amd die......they should, good riddance to bad rubbish........

RTFA and kyles responces in this thred, he has nothing nice to say about amd, why should he, they suck.

lets look at it.

at the low power end atom is faster and uses less power then those new am2 based low power chips, via nano is even better/faster....thats sad.....so amd has nothing to sell in this market anybodys gonna want.

mid range, c2d/c2q are cheaper and easyer to overclock then anything amd offers, oh yeah and they are faster in every way.......so again, noting anybodys gonna want.

high end, you have qx9770 and i7 setups, again amd has NOTING that can come close to competing, why would anybody buy that crap?

 

[flyz]

Another great article from [H].
The no bullshit, no frills, tell it like it is attitude we've all came to love .

 

[khansolo]

This has certainly been quite the rocky topic (and I spent all afternoon reading it). I want AMD to get back into shape too. I supported them in the athlon days before jumping all the way to C2D. I've also been using ATI cards all this time until my recent switch to nvidia. I love to see competition because it's always entertaining to switch to new hardware to experience the best performer.

Also, someone brought up an interesting note in these many pages. The current socket Intel is on is LGA1366. Does anyone know how long they actually plan to stay on this? LGA775 played a great deal on my upgrades because I was able to use the same hardware here and there. This is pretty much the reason I didn't jump onto AMD's 754. As soon as I heard they were scrapping it for the 939, I stayed away. I didn't want to get caught like that.

 

[Zero82z]

Also, someone brought up an interesting note in these many pages. The current socket Intel is on is LGA1366. Does anyone know how long they actually plan to stay on this? LGA775 played a great deal on my upgrades because I was able to use the same hardware here and there. This is pretty much the reason I didn't jump onto AMD's 754. As soon as I heard they were scrapping it for the 939, I stayed away. I didn't want to get caught like that.

At least two years. They won't be changing sockets until their next new architecture at the earliest.

 

[SevenUp]

This has certainly been quite the rocky topic (and I spent all afternoon reading it). I want AMD to get back into shape too. I supported them in the athlon days before jumping all the way to C2D. I've also been using ATI cards all this time until my recent switch to nvidia. I love to see competition because it's always entertaining to switch to new hardware to experience the best performer.

Also, someone brought up an interesting note in these many pages. The current socket Intel is on is LGA1366. Does anyone know how long they actually plan to stay on this? LGA775 played a great deal on my upgrades because I was able to use the same hardware here and there. This is pretty much the reason I didn't jump onto AMD's 754. As soon as I heard they were scrapping it for the 939, I stayed away. I didn't want to get caught like that.

1366 is an enthusiast socket, nehalem and westmere will be 1366. Entry level desktop will move to 1160 and servers will move to 1567.

 

[DPGX]

I get that Kyle didnt love the CPU but what I dont get are the benchmarks, I cant find another review on the net that reflects the Phenom II getting rocked like this and Ive read upwards of 10 reviews now.... Did they have CnQ enabled when benching? I know the older phenoms had issues with this, not sure if its resolved in P2? Thatd be my guess on what happened here? I cant imagine results being this different from everyone elses without some sort of system issue?

 

[SheepCake]

I get that Kyle didnt love the CPU but what I dont get are the benchmarks, I cant find another review on the net that reflects the Phenom II getting rocked like this and Ive read upwards of 10 reviews now.... Did they have CnQ enabled when benching? I know the older phenoms had issues with this, not sure if its resolved in P2? Thatd be my guess on what happened here? I cant imagine results being this different from everyone elses without some sort of system issue?

because all the other reviewers as kyle put it "drank the AMD koolaid" no other excuse for their results or conclusions clearly kyle is telling it like it is, even if the fanboi's cant take it and run home to mommy crying.....

 

[Zero82z]

I get that Kyle didnt love the CPU but what I dont get are the benchmarks, I cant find another review on the net that reflects the Phenom II getting rocked like this and Ive read upwards of 10 reviews now.... Did they have CnQ enabled when benching? I know the older phenoms had issues with this, not sure if its resolved in P2? Thatd be my guess on what happened here? I cant imagine results being this different from everyone elses without some sort of system issue?

Kyle clocked all of his test CPUs to 3.2GHz, whereas most other sites tested with all their chips at stock speeds. That's why his results are different.

 

[maxius]

wow 10 pages of angst and anger kyle should do more amd reviews

on a serious note he did manage to whip the amd forum into an insane frenzy all in all amd pr needed this bitch smacking though the p2 is a step froward in the right direction its not what was expecting.

NOTE TO AMD HOLD OFF AM3 TILL JUNE AND GIVE THE Damn CHIP SOME REAL COMPETITIVE LEGS YOU HAVE THE TALENT USE IT DAMN YOU....

 

[DPGX]

So 10 other review sites had wrong numbers? That seems strange to me... I doubt Anandtech, Techreport and guru3d posted inaccurate results from 'drinking AMD koolaid'... I suppose Im not following what youre saying. When 10 results show the same thing and one doesnt, generally you re-analyze that 1 obscure result in a lab environment do you not? The i7 965 is clocked at 3.2ghz by default which every other review used the i7 at, these results do not compute. If anything the AMD processor was clocked higher (940 at 3.2) and wouldve made Hardocp's results CLOSER than other review sites.

 

[FrgMstr]

So 10 other review sites had wrong numbers? That seems strange to me... I doubt Anandtech, Techreport and guru3d posted inaccurate results from 'drinking AMD koolaid'... I suppose Im not following what youre saying. When 10 results show the same thing and one doesnt, generally you re-analyze that 1 obscure result in a lab environment do you not? The i7 965 is clocked at 3.2ghz by default which every other review used the i7 at, these results do not compute. If anything the AMD processor was clocked higher (940 at 3.2) and wouldve made Hardocp's results CLOSER than other review sites.

Well do the math and lay it out for us instead of talking in generalizations. I would like to see what you think is going wrong.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

did you even RTFA?

clearly shows AMD=TRASH and has NO PLACE IN THE MARKET, they arent effecting intel at all, intel could just drop prices on the whole c2q line and watch amd die......they should, good riddance to bad rubbish........

RTFA and kyles responces in this thred, he has nothing nice to say about amd, why should he, they suck.
lets look at it.
at the low power end atom is faster and uses less power then those new am2 based low power chips, via nano is even better/faster....thats sad.....so amd has nothing to sell in this market anybodys gonna want.

mid range, c2d/c2q are cheaper and easyer to overclock then anything amd offers, oh yeah and they are faster in every way.......so again, noting anybodys gonna want.

high end, you have qx9770 and i7 setups, again amd has NOTING that can come close to competing, why would anybody buy that crap?

Can you really be that ignorant? AMD is the reason you ever saw core 2, or i7, and hopefully will continue to see it, otherwise we'd be at 5.5ghz pentium 6s

just because you don't have the fastest system doesn't mean it's trash, and by the way, when he bought that cpu, it was faster then anything Intel had to offer, I guess INTEL = TRASH AND HAS NO PLACE ON THE MARKET

the high end is not what makes $$, it's the mainstream, low end and server market that does, and right now AMD has a new product on the server side where as Intel still hasn't released i7 to the server market
responses, thread, easier

 

[2ecuas]

Well I finished reading the review and I still don't know what cpu to buy in the $250 - $300 price range. I did learn that $1000 Intel parts are faster than < $300 AMD Phenom II's. So, ehh, thanks.

 

[maxius]

Can you really be that ignorant? AMD is the reason you ever saw core 2, or i7, and hopefully will continue to see it, otherwise we'd be at 5.5ghz pentium 6s

just because you don't have the fastest system doesn't mean it's trash, and by the way, when he bought that cpu, it was faster then anything Intel had to offer, I guess INTEL = TRASH AND HAS NO PLACE ON THE MARKET

don't you mean 45nm netburst p4

 

[DPGX]

Understood resolutions and other settings may not be identical but results are extremely different. I just dont understand how results are so different. I understand page 1 of your game benchmarks were at 640x480 but how is this possible:

Far Cry 2:
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenomii940/9.htm
vs
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNyw1LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
vs
http://techreport.com/r.x/phenom-ii/farcry2.gif
(quote from tech report: I used a relatively low 1024x768 display resolution and DirectX 9)

Crysis Warhead:
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=19
vs.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/21
vs the hocp results

 

[maxius]

Well I finished reading the review and I still don't know what cpu to buy in the $250 - $300 price range. I did learn that $1000 Intel parts are faster than < $300 AMD Phenom II's. So, ehh, thanks.

that is very direct and to the point im suprised you are the 1st one in 10 pages that has said anything like that kyle better keep an eye on him he is a smart one

 

[Captain Picard]

Gosh, that was spooky.

I just made a post saying it was about time to take the TRaSH out. Lo and behold, a few seconds after my post went up, the trash was gone! (incidentally, my post was gone as well)

Onto the topic at hand, I agree with the assessment that right out of the gate, the Ph2 isn't very compelling beyond an upgrade for current AM2+ users. I too was hoping for a better show from AMD. My brother inherited a nice ASUS AM2+ board, so maybe with a bios update, he can upgrade from his budget 4600+ X2 to a cheap Ph2.

 

[Casper312]

There should be a rule that requires you to read the thread before posting and then pop-quizing you just in case you skipped through it, before letting you post.

Would be soo nice instead of people posting the same thing over and over again.

 

[El Perro]

from reading the anandtech review it kinda gets rocked there too... the i7 pretty much beats it by a lot in every single test and the c2d beats it in almost every test. They just reach a different conclusion for other reasons. The honest reality is that clock for clock the phenom can't compete with a last gen processor from intel. This may not matter to many of you who don't need top notch performance but to people like me who need every hz I can get it matters a lot. The [H] has always been about getting every last bit of speed out of anything that comes in a computer, if you want to read nancy reviews I suggest going elsewhere.

 

[El Perro]

Well I finished reading the review and I still don't know what cpu to buy in the $250 - $300 price range. I did learn that $1000 Intel parts are faster than < $300 AMD Phenom II's. So, ehh, thanks.

From the review you didn't read:
"I think that the enthusiast is wondering exactly what I am wondering. “How does this Phenom II do clock-per-clock compared to Intel’s Core 2 and Core i7?” Now while some of you will whine loudly, “That’s not fair! That flagship Core i7 is $1000!” Well you people just need to shut the hell up and go have a drink. You are already unreasonable, so a little alcohol won’t hurt you in the least. We have not seen any Core i7 processors that would not easily clock to the 3.2GHz mark we are using here today. And the Core i7 920 can already be purchased for less than $300. Same goes for Core 2 Quad. Under $300 and will clock to 3.2GHz easily. That said, our Phenom II Black Edition 940 easily clocked to 3.2GHz at stock voltages.

3.2GHz is currently the “flaghship” stock clock for Intel so we decided to use this clock for our testing here today. HardOCP readers are familiar with 3.2GHz as well, you guys call that “slow.”"

 

[jcolby]

So 10 other review sites had wrong numbers? That seems strange to me... I doubt Anandtech, Techreport and guru3d posted inaccurate results from 'drinking AMD koolaid'... I suppose Im not following what youre saying. When 10 results show the same thing and one doesnt, generally you re-analyze that 1 obscure result in a lab environment do you not? The i7 965 is clocked at 3.2ghz by default which every other review used the i7 at, these results do not compute. If anything the AMD processor was clocked higher (940 at 3.2) and wouldve made Hardocp's results CLOSER than other review sites.

Naaaa, you just spend the entire day defending your results as the only correct ones in the world, and note how the rest of the world is drinking the koolaid.

 

[jcolby]

Well I finished reading the review and I still don't know what cpu to buy in the $250 - $300 price range. I did learn that $1000 Intel parts are faster than < $300 AMD Phenom II's. So, ehh, thanks.

LOL you noticed that? Hmmm... thousand dollar parts with 12 megs of cache can beat the latest AMD processor? Well now THAT's news!

 

[Oberon]

I'm disappointed that nobody has addressed my concerns about the scaling issues in FC2, yet.

Post #40 if anyone cares to look.

 

[funkydmunky]

So [H]ard, yet they coundn't get 1066RAM to work? I guess HardOCP does't have the abillity to source a new MB? And when they decided to go DDR2-800 they couldn't round up more then 2GB? WTF! Ya that shit's so expensive. I noticed they also forgot to mention what OS they tested on. Vista and FC2 and ya lets give the P2 only 2GB. Sad so sad. The results are so off from every other review, and all this time I never knew I was visiting a fanboy site.
Makes me puke!

 

[2ecuas]

From the review you didn't read:
"I think that the enthusiast is wondering exactly what I am wondering. “How does this Phenom II do clock-per-clock compared to Intel’s Core 2 and Core i7?” Now while some of you will whine loudly, “That’s not fair! That flagship Core i7 is $1000!” Well you people just need to shut the hell up and go have a drink. You are already unreasonable, so a little alcohol won’t hurt you in the least. We have not seen any Core i7 processors that would not easily clock to the 3.2GHz mark we are using here today. And the Core i7 920 can already be purchased for less than $300. Same goes for Core 2 Quad. Under $300 and will clock to 3.2GHz easily. That said, our Phenom II Black Edition 940 easily clocked to 3.2GHz at stock voltages.

3.2GHz is currently the “flaghship” stock clock for Intel so we decided to use this clock for our testing here today. HardOCP readers are familiar with 3.2GHz as well, you guys call that “slow.”"

Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure i7 is the right path for me. The platform forces a $250 motherboard purchase and more expensive RAM.

I understand Core 2 will clock to 3.2Ghz easily. But does that mean a Q9400 is a better buy than a Phenom II 940 if the Phenom can reach 3.7Ghz easily with its stock cooler? This review, imo was less than helpful and seems to serve more as a mud flinging apparatus.

 

[Zero82z]

LOL you noticed that? Hmmm... thousand dollar parts with 12 megs of cache can beat the latest AMD processor? Well now THAT's news!

Apparently, what's news is that you didn't RTFA:

Now while some of you will whine loudly, “That’s not fair! That flagship Core i7 is $1000!” Well you people just need to shut the hell up and go have a drink. You are already unreasonable, so a little alcohol won’t hurt you in the least. We have not seen any Core i7 processors that would not easily clock to the 3.2GHz mark we are using here today. And the Core i7 920 can already be purchased for less than $300. Same goes for Core 2 Quad. Under $300 and will clock to 3.2GHz easily.

 

[DPGX]

Naaaa, you just spend the entire day defending your results as the only correct ones in the world, and note how the rest of the world is drinking the koolaid.

Im pretty confused if youre directing that at me, I posted other credible graphs showing opposite results of what we see here, so everyone elses results are wrong is what youre trying to imply? Apologize in advance if that wasnt directed at me

 

[jcolby]

Im pretty confused if youre directing that at me, I posted other credible graphs showing opposite results of what we see here, so everyone elses results are wrong is what youre trying to imply?

Nope, I'm directing it at the person claiming every other reviewer is drinking the coolaid. The same person that published the ONLY review in the world that (according to the reviewer) is worth reading.

Every fourth post is a response as to why his is the only review on the planet that is accurate. Makes for boring reading I must say.

 

[El Perro]

Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure i7 is the right path for me. The platform forces a $250 motherboard purchase and more expensive RAM.

I understand Core 2 will clock to 3.2Ghz easily. But does that mean a Q9400 is a better buy than a Phenom II 940 if the Phenom can reach 3.7Ghz easily with its stock cooler? This review, imo was less than helpful and seems to serve more as a mud flinging apparatus.

honestly, a core 2 quad can reach 3.7ghz easily as well... Right now the i7 is expensive but in a month or so the prices should drop considerably especially now with phenom 2. If the only good thing that comes out of this is a drop in prices then good for everyone.

 

[PsyKo[H]]

3.2GHz is currently the “flaghship” stock clock for Intel so we decided to use this clock for our testing here today. HardOCP readers are familiar with 3.2GHz as well, you guys call that “slow.”

That quote right there had me busting my butt laughing... Instant classic. Is it just me or Kyle seemed really frustrated throughout the review?

 

[DPGX]

Nope, I'm directing it at the person claiming every other reviewer is drinking the coolaid. The same person that published the ONLY review in the world that (according to the reviewer) is worth reading.

Every fourth post is a response as to why his is the only review on the planet that is accurate. Makes for boring reading I must say.

LOL its cool I went back a page and realized this Sorry about that!

 

[El Perro]

That quote right there had me busting my butt laughing... Instant classic. Is it just me or Kyle seemed really frustrated throughout the review?

it's insulting! My i7 is at 3.2ghz currently while USPS decides to deliver the rest of my parts

 

[FrgMstr]

Understood resolutions and other settings may not be identical but results are extremely different. I just dont understand how results are so different. I understand page 1 of your game benchmarks were at 640x480 but how is this possible:

Far Cry 2:
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/phenomii940/9.htm
vs
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTYwNyw1LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
vs
http://techreport.com/r.x/phenom-ii/farcry2.gif
(quote from tech report: I used a relatively low 1024x768 display resolution and DirectX 9)

Crysis Warhead:
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492&p=19
vs.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/amd-phenom-ii-x4-920-and-940-review-test/21
vs the hocp results

Did not run Warhead, so there are no results to compare so I am unsure how you see a difference.

On the FC2 results OCnet are using AA which is going to bring the game around to being GPU limited much more quickly causing the frame rates to bunch up closer. We explained this in our review as to why we DID NOT do this for this very fact.

We have not used AntiAliasing on these benchmarks, as we all know that is a sure way to make the benchmark a GDDR memory bandwidth fest quickly. With the AA limitation removed, we get to truly see which CPUS can push this game engine giving you better gaming performance.

The Tech Report are nothing but numbers, no settings, so it means nothing to me.

What I have done for you though is put our FC2 testing files up on our server so you can grab the zip if you want. We try to be as transparent as possible in our testing. One file is the 640x480 run that we use for mobo testing. The Ultra run is what we used in the NF200 article, and the Very High is what we used on the conclusion page of the PII article.

http://ads.hardocp.com/HardOCP_FC2-benches.zip