My Phenom II benchmarks

Scali2 said:
The Phenom II 940 got slaughtered by an i7 920 in many benchmarks listed here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3543987&postcount=229

With such a large performance gap it's hard to do any price/performance comparisons. There isn't a linear scale between price and performance, there never was, and there never will be. It makes sense when performance is within 5% of eachother, but when you see gaps of 30-50%, that's just a whole different level of performance.

Phenom II shouldn't be compared against anything other than Core2 Quad in terms of price/performance, because at least those processors are in the same league as far as performance goes. Which also pretty much nullifies the DDR2/motherboard arguments in the process.
All we need is a price drop on Core2 Quad. It's rather ridiculous that the i7 920 is so cheap, yet outperforms nearly all Core2 Quads, even ones that are more than three times as expensive.
Click to expand...

Umm that chart shows the Phenom 920 not the Phenom 940. But you are right the Intel i7 chips do out perform the Phenom II by a wide margin in everything except gaming. Being that I am a gamer that makes the Phenom II a viable replacement for my Intel Q6600 if the performance gap is significant and the price is right. Otherwise, I will just keep the Q6600 for another year or so until the i7s are more affordable (meaning when the price of the CPU, MB and DDR3 all decrease significantly). Right now, for gamers, the i7 is just not much of a step up in performance for the price of admission.

I will wait for [H] and other sites to do some game benchmarks and actual game performance comparisons on the Phenom II versus the Qxxxxs and i7s before I spend my money.
 
RAMPAGEOH said:
Umm that chart shows the Phenom 920 not the Phenom 940. But you are right the Intel i7 chips do out perform the Phenom II by a wide margin in everything except gaming. Being that I am a gamer that makes the Phenom II a viable replacement for my Intel Q6600 if the performance gap is significant and the price is right. Otherwise, I will just keep the Q6600 for another year or so until the i7s are more affordable (meaning when the price of the CPU, MB and DDR3 all decrease significantly). Right now, for gamers, the i7 is just not much of a step up in performance for the price of admission.

I will wait for [H] and other sites to do some game benchmarks and actual game performance comparisons on the Phenom II versus the Qxxxxs and i7s before I spend my money.
Click to expand...

Why are people so clueless about the socket 1156 i7 comming out later this year?
(Socket 1156 i7 = P55 chipset and dualchannel DDR3 = MAINSTREAM)

(Socket 1336 i7 = X58 chipset and tri-channel DDR = HIGH END)
 
RAMPAGEOH said:
Umm that chart shows the Phenom 920 not the Phenom 940.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know, Websense blocks the damn thing. I saw it last night and thought it was the 940.
At any rate, they should already show that Phenom II won't be a big improvement in games over a Q6600... Perhaps no improvement at all over an overclocked Q6600.
 
Scali2 said:
The Phenom II 940 got slaughtered by an i7 920 in many benchmarks listed here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3543987&postcount=229
Click to expand...

Not that I disagree with your conclusions (I don't agree with all of them either), but the link shows Phenom II 920 (not 940). The 200Mhz, more for the 940, will only account for max. 7% extra speed, but would let it win more of the tests (hard to tell how many), but still loose in most, and some of them it will still loose with a big margin.

Phenom II is a Core2 Quad competitor, nothing more.
 
Atech said:
Why are people so clueless about the socket 1156 i7 comming out later this year?
(Socket 1156 i7 = P55 chipset and dualchannel DDR3 = MAINSTREAM)

Socket 1336 i7 = X58 chipset and tri-channel DDR = HIGHEND)
Click to expand...

I believe Socket 1156 will be called the Core i5 series, not i7.
 
Atech said:
Why are people so clueless about the socket 1156 i7 comming out later this year?
(Socket 1156 i7 = P55 chipset and dualchannel DDR3 = MAINSTREAM)

(Socket 1336 i7 = X58 chipset and tri-channel DDR = HIGH END)
Click to expand...


That would be a discussion for the Intel forum. Plus if the i7 is not much of a performance increase when gaming then I doubt that the i5 will be one either.
 
RAMPAGEOH said:
That would be a discussion for the Intel forum. Plus if the i7 is not much of a performance increase when gaming then I doubt that the i5 will be one either.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that if you ONLY game, the Phenom2 could be a viable alternative..as long as you do NOTHING else on you PC?

If that is the case, I agree with you.
If not, please elaborate?
 
as long as you do NOTHING else on you PC?
Click to expand...

To be fair, the things that 99.9% of computer users do, would be fine on a PHII... The correct statement should be, "As long as you do no encoding, rendering, or multicore number crunching, the phenom 2 could be a viable alternative."
 
RAMPAGEOH said:
That would be a discussion for the Intel forum. Plus if the i7 is not much of a performance increase when gaming then I doubt that the i5 will be one either.
Click to expand...

thats because gaming is GPU dependant. i wish everyone realized this. you could build a cpu thats 10x faster then a i7 but guess what. it wont make your pc game run any better
 
jonneymendoza said:
thats because gaming is GPU dependant. i wish everyone realized this. you could build a cpu thats 10x faster then a i7 but guess what. it wont make your pc game run any better
Click to expand...

Not to be overly literal, since I of course understand what you mean, but a 10x faster CPU WOULD make a difference I think o.o
 
TS28 said:
Not to be overly literal, since I of course understand what you mean, but a 10x faster CPU WOULD make a difference I think o.o
Click to expand...

depends on the resolution youre gaming at. if you were gaming at 1280 x 1024 all the time, yeah the CPU would make a huge difference.

most real gamers game at 1600 x 1200 AT LEAST, if not 1920 x 1200. and the hardcore guys game at 2560 x 1600. a fast CPU does NOTHING in those situations.
 
Do PH2's have a heat problem?? Seems not anyone has stated they do ATM.

This fellow in a review at the Egg states that the i7 920 shoots up to 100C when running 8 instances of Prime - whether simultaneously or in repetition he doesn't state - when using the stock HSF.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...le-_-Processors+-+Desktops-_-Intel-_-19115202

Only way for AMD to get near the i7's overall performance is to get some metal gateways etc. in their silicon. Seems this is what some semi-conductor engineer people think. Google around for this.

However, I thought that DDR2 and DDR3 had different pin amounts and needed different slots, or is it that dual channel DDR3 sticks have the same pin count and work in the same slot as DDR2, and that tri channel DDR3 has a different pin count and therefore needs a different slot?

Anyway, the PH2's will run on AM2+ mobos with DDR2, so that makes for a quick and hopefully inexpensive/CHEAP upgrade for people with good AM2+ mobos as long as the PH2's are indeed CHEAPER in comparison to other alternatives.

Some more real world performance tests of the PH2's also need to be done and results shown.

Chris
 
Most of the other stuff I use my computer for even my old K6 AMD will do just fine. I don't need an i7 to read articles on the internet, working in Excel and Word, managing my website and arguing (I mean discussing) opinions and some facts on this and other forums.

Yes, I realize that gaming is more dependent on the GPU than it is on the CPU and that is kinda my point. For the money difference between the Phenom II and the i7 setups (including MB and memory) I can buy a very nice upgrade in video cards which will put the Phenom system way ahead of the Intel system for gaming.

Many naysayers in this thread seem to be saying that the Phenom II is a waste of money because it cannot beat the i7 at everything. My point is that it may be a very good value to MOST computer users that do not need the pinnacle of performance to meet their day to day computer needs.
 
AmongTheChosenX said:
most real gamers game at 1600 x 1200 AT LEAST
Click to expand...

jeeze, what fantasy world do you live in.... most real gamers dont spend much money on gaming in general and to have a rig capable of playing games at that resolution requires more frequent upgrading than most gamers (my far) are willing to do....


seriously, where the hell did you get your information...
 
RAMPAGEOH said:
Plus if the i7 is not much of a performance increase when gaming then I doubt that the i5 will be one either.
Click to expand...

No, but Core i5 will most probably operate in the same pricerange as Phenom II. If performance is anything like i7 (and preliminary benchmarks indicate such), it seems like Intel will have the best bang-for-the-buck.
 
Scali2 said:
No, but Core i5 will most probably operate in the same pricerange as Phenom II. If performance is anything like i7 (and preliminary benchmarks indicate such), it seems like Intel will have the best bang-for-the-buck.
Click to expand...

I doubt prices will be the same as they are now when i5 is launched.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
I doubt prices will be the same as they are now when i5 is launched.
Click to expand...

Since we don't know Core i5 prices at all, that doesn't matter. All we know is that Core i5 is going to be cheaper than Core i7 (which will probably be cheaper than today aswell by the time Core i5 launches).
I'm just saying that I expect Intel to put at least some Core i5 models in the pricerange of Phenom II. After all, there isn't a whole lot of room between the cheapest Core i7 and Phenom II.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
jeeze, what fantasy world do you live in.... most real gamers dont spend much money on gaming in general and to have a rig capable of playing games at that resolution requires more frequent upgrading than most gamers (my far) are willing to do....


seriously, where the hell did you get your information...
Click to expand...


well, real gamers.. haha jk

but the other end of it is that youre talking about the people who dont drop thousands into their rig. ok fine.
but then why the hell would they buy a $300 quad core CPU?
if youre budget limits you to 1280 x 1024 gaming, then youre not getting an i7 CPU anyways, thus taht cancels out high frame rates at that resolution.
 
Scali2 said:
No, but Core i5 will most probably operate in the same pricerange as Phenom II. If performance is anything like i7 (and preliminary benchmarks indicate such), it seems like Intel will have the best bang-for-the-buck.
Click to expand...

You may well be right. I would expect Phenom II prices to fall steadily too. I am guessing that if AMD cannot sell the Phenom II 940 for around $200 in the near future then they will not make much headway in the "value performance" market. Prices that I have seen projected so far put the chip at $300. That price, in my opinion, may be a tough sell. If they can get it down closer to the $200 range then I think they have a chance to start turning their loss of market share around.
 
AmongTheChosenX said:
well, real gamers.. haha jk

but the other end of it is that youre talking about the people who dont drop thousands into their rig. ok fine.
but then why the hell would they buy a $300 quad core CPU?
if youre budget limits you to 1280 x 1024 gaming, then youre not getting an i7 CPU anyways, thus taht cancels out high frame rates at that resolution.
Click to expand...

im pretty sure that a q6600 system + 48xx/9xxx series GPU is well under a grand if you are upgrading and carrying over a significant number of components like optical discs/chassis/maybe PSU, and even cheaper if going with a wolfdale series processor....

seriously, the *vast* majority of gamers, hardcore or not, do*not* get the latest and greatest every year or so.... and when they do upgrade, it is usually to whatever gives the best bang/$

check the steam hardware survey, im pretty sure more gamers game at 1280x1024 than at 1600x1200 or 1920 x 1200 combined. probably even more so for 1024x768
 
Scali2 said:
Since we don't know Core i5 prices at all, that doesn't matter. All we know is that Core i5 is going to be cheaper than Core i7 (which will probably be cheaper than today aswell by the time Core i5 launches).
I'm just saying that I expect Intel to put at least some Core i5 models in the pricerange of Phenom II. After all, there isn't a whole lot of room between the cheapest Core i7 and Phenom II.
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't say what I wanted to clearly, I meant phenom II prices should be a fair bit lower then i7 by then, I don't think i7 will drop as its a "premium" ish cpu. Probably Core 2 Quads will drop, and i5s will fill in their spot(Q9400 etc)
 
Atech said:
So what you are saying is that if you ONLY game, the Phenom2 could be a viable alternative..as long as you do NOTHING else on you PC?

If that is the case, I agree with you.
If not, please elaborate?
Click to expand...

You can do ANYTHING on a Phenom II that you can do on a C2Q or an i7. It's just going to take longer. LOL ;)

AmongTheChosenX said:
depends on the resolution youre gaming at. if you were gaming at 1280 x 1024 all the time, yeah the CPU would make a huge difference.

most real gamers game at 1600 x 1200 AT LEAST, if not 1920 x 1200. and the hardcore guys game at 2560 x 1600. a fast CPU does NOTHING in those situations.
Click to expand...


I am a "real" gamer....more of a hardcore gamer actually. To say that your screen resolution has anything to do with your ability to game is absurd. I've probably been gaming since you were in diapers, if that matters.

FWIW, I game at 1680x1050. That's all my 22" screen allows. Someone gaming on a 30" screen at 2560x1600 isn't automatically a "hardcore" gamer, it just means mommy and daddy have more money than the guy with the 22".

As far as performance goes. If people really, honestly, truely believe that gaming at 120fps instead of 110fps is going to make them better.......they should probably focus on actually winning the game instead of their frame rates.:rolleyes:
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
im pretty sure that a q6600 system + 48xx/9xxx series GPU is well under a grand if you are upgrading and carrying over a significant number of components like optical discs/chassis/maybe PSU, and even cheaper if going with a wolfdale series processor....

seriously, the *vast* majority of gamers, hardcore or not, do*not* get the latest and greatest every year or so.... and when they do upgrade, it is usually to whatever gives the best bang/$

check the steam hardware survey, im pretty sure more gamers game at 1280x1024 than at 1600x1200 or 1920 x 1200 combined. probably even more so for 1024x768
Click to expand...

doubt it mate. most people now game at 1680x res. heck most dell pc's come with a 22inch monitor now.

that steam survey is not accurate. how long as that survey been going on for? im sure people with 1080p monitors once voted that they had a 1280x res monitor when they first did the survey.

its best if they reset the survey to allow people to redo it. then you will see a much clearer picture on whats most popular.
 
I thought the survey was redone every once in a while?

anyway it shows
14% 1680
24.8% 1280
24% 1024

thing is, I doubt anyone at 1280 is going to drop $400 for a cpu and $300 for a mobo =p those people are probably on A64, Pentium 4s and the dual core variants,

currently most monitors I see are 19" and 20-22" wide screens giving 1440x900 and 1680x1050

how any of this relates to phenom 2 or i7 is far beyond me =p I'd rather have $200 cpu and a $400 vcard then a $400cpu and $200vcard
 
I don't think the cost of the CPU here is the main issue. The low end i7 is very competitive even against Intels own 775 line. It is the cost of the MB and RAM that take the intelligent gamer away from the i7 and possibly towards the PII, or sticking with what they already have. As has been pointed out, for a gamer, the money is better spent on a better GFX card(s)/monitor(s).
If your into HD video composition/editing or 3D GFX the $$ premium for an i7 w/thriple channel RAM is worth the added expense IMO.
 
RAMPAGEOH said:
You may well be right. I would expect Phenom II prices to fall steadily too. I am guessing that if AMD cannot sell the Phenom II 940 for around $200 in the near future then they will not make much headway in the "value performance" market. Prices that I have seen projected so far put the chip at $300. That price, in my opinion, may be a tough sell. If they can get it down closer to the $200 range then I think they have a chance to start turning their loss of market share around.
Click to expand...

Hi, Is that $300 Oz or $300 USofA?? I think that PH2 940 will be sold for around $200 USofA. Yes, no???

Thanx, Chris
 
I think the 920 is 280, while 940 is 300. I do not recall where i saw those prices.

Im actually wanting to see how the 940 performs to my Q9550. My buddy is on a 5600x2 wishes to go with a similar setup to mine, but hopefully the phenom 2 will not disappoint and be a worty upgrade for him. Me on the other hand is very happy with my Q9550, if it happends to stomp my chip by a long shot, i might consider moving into it when am3 hits to see if it compares to i5.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
I thought the survey was redone every once in a while?

anyway it shows
14% 1680
24.8% 1280
24% 1024

thing is, I doubt anyone at 1280 is going to drop $400 for a cpu and $300 for a mobo =p those people are probably on A64, Pentium 4s and the dual core variants,

currently most monitors I see are 19" and 20-22" wide screens giving 1440x900 and 1680x1050

how any of this relates to phenom 2 or i7 is far beyond me =p I'd rather have $200 cpu and a $400 vcard then a $400cpu and $200vcard
Click to expand...


whats the most popular video card? i bet its a 9800pro. if true then that survey hasnt been updated for ages
 
christof139 said:
Here, http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/08/amd-phenom-ii-processor-gets-outed-might-even-be-released/ it is saying $275 for 940 and $235 for 920, and that would be better prices and they would sell more. We'll have to wait and see. Your Q9550 is a very good CPU, I have an E4700 that I have to replace my old P4 571 and probably the PD 940 that IO bought to replace the 571 but never did so. The PD 940 is still in the box.
Click to expand...

The actual prices should be announced Thursday or Friday at CES. I backed into my price estimate by looking at the ads of some of the boutique computer builders and looking at the price difference between a Phenom 9950BE and a Phenom II 940 system. All other components were exactly the same in the system and the price difference was $300USD. That is not an exact science though as the company may be a charging a bit of a premium for the "new" technology. AMD needs to keep the price as low as possible to ensure that this chip is going to be successful against the Intel CPUs.
 
Yeah, your estimate of $300 is close to the estimate of $275. We buyers just have to hope the price will be as low as possible (ALAP) and hopefully it will.
 
jonneymendoza said:
whats the most popular video card? i bet its a 9800pro. if true then that survey hasnt been updated for ages
Click to expand...

The most popular card on the Steam hardware survey is the GeForce 8800 series, Radeon 9800 didn't even make the top list.

The bottom line that has always kept me with AMD is the platform cost. As a gamer, I always want to put most of my build budget into the video card. Let's say the AMD P2 940 costs $300. That is still at least $250 cheaper than the Intel part most people are comparing it to. The Intel X58 mobo needed for said chip to really take off is about $100 more than a comparable AMD board. And let's not even touch DDR2 vs DDR3 price/performance ratios. I am psyched about this chip as a drop in upgrade for my AMD rig which is still going strong to get some more years of maxed out settings. Probably gonna pick the 920 unless price difference is minimal.
 
The Pharaoh said:
The bottom line that has always kept me with AMD is the platform cost. As a gamer, I always want to put most of my build budget into the video card. Let's say the AMD P2 940 costs $300. That is still at least $250 cheaper than the Intel part most people are comparing it to.
Click to expand...
Whose comparing it to the Core i7 940? Plus the most comparable Intel CPU is the Q9550 which right now is about $315.
 
Since we were also talking about prices, and the fact that I don't have the 50-posts required to post in the Hot Deals Section, I found this just now in an eamil from Micro Center, an Intel -7 for $280. AMD is going to have to beat this price with their PH2's so let's hope they do.

http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0300438

And, could someone psot this link in the Hot Deals Section, because I am sure there are some people here that might want the i7 920 for $280.

If the PH2 940 is $275, that may be too much or maybe that will be OK. Personally I hope the price is a bit lower as I uess we all do.

Thanx, Chris
 
Yea, the irony is that the Core i7 920 is by far the best value for money at this point... but the motherboard and DDR3 prices aren't in line with the CPU's value.
On the other hand, Core2 Quad motherboards are cheap, and many of them can accept cheap DDR2... but the CPUs themselves are way more expensive than the 920.
I hope Intel sees this too, and drops prices on the Core2 Quad line when Phenom II is introduced.
 
I'm thinking the whole C2Q line will lose about $40 per chip to compete with Phenom II's. Q6600's for ~$150, Q9550 ~$275 and so forth. This would make the most sense on Intel's part to keep consumers from going green.
 
Yep that's what may make the Phenom II attractive. You can run it in a 100usd 790GX mobo with 2 x 2Gb 45usd ram. X58 mobos are around 300usd and up. The cheapest DDR3 1066 2 x 2Gb ram kit I've seen is 94usd.

Honestly a 160usd Phenom 9950 @ 3.1GHz will support most all graphics cards well. You could get that, some ram and a mobo for the price of a single X58 motherboard. You could put that extra cash towards an HD 4870 1Gb. They're down to 239usd currently.

Of course the best price vs performance quad out is the Q6600 G0 for 190usd. It will do 3.6-3.8GHz in most cases. I've tested Tri-SLi extensively with an i7 920 @ 3.2GHz and 3.96GHz. @ 1280x with no filtering I lose 5-8FPS in the 60-80FPS range @ 3.2GHz. At the res I actually play, 1920x, I lose even less. My point is, you don't need a 4.0GHz i7 920 for a pure gaming ring even when running something like well overclocked GTX 260 Tri-SLi. The i7 920 @ 4.0GHz is far better than the Q6600 @ 3.6-3.8GHz, and not to the tune of +100usd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top