Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom II X4 940 > 4ghz++

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 16, 2008 3:02:10 PM



Love the new naming scheme. :lol: 










Talk about a scrappy underdog! :D 


Original link:

http://publish.it168.com/2008/1114/20081114006901.shtml

More about : phenom 940 4ghz

November 16, 2008 3:17:57 PM

gr8... im waiting for deneb processors..looks really hot & a kickintheass for INTEL ... WOHOOOOO GOOOOO AMD !!!
November 16, 2008 3:38:27 PM

you think the naming scheme will be a kick in the ass for Intel? maybe i am missing something here..
Related resources
November 16, 2008 3:45:51 PM

roofus said:
you think the naming scheme will be a kick in the ass for Intel? maybe i am missing something here..


We both are I'm confused as to what this is attempting to amount to.

Word, Playa.
November 16, 2008 3:49:41 PM

Does that overclock comparison come from AMD? LMAO, I'll love it if its tru but until I see reviews...
November 16, 2008 3:58:16 PM

any idea on pricing yet?
November 16, 2008 3:59:13 PM

What is the asterisk after Overclock mean?
I'd like to see what the explanation of the asterisk is for. Is it warning about overclocking, or is it to explain to use a specific type of HSF for that specific overclock?
They explained the other asterisk about the 800 series using only 6MB of L2 and L3 cache. So, why no explanation for the overclock asterisk?
Also, is that the TDP rating being used? I thought AMD used the ACP rating.
November 16, 2008 4:14:41 PM

overclock liquid with an asterisk? liquid nitrogen?
November 16, 2008 4:17:06 PM

If these are even in the ballpark i'll think of getting one. I could do with a CPU upgrade, but the present crop of AM2+ chips just aren't worth dishing out any cash on.
November 16, 2008 4:20:22 PM

roofus said:
overclock liquid with an asterisk? liquid nitrogen?

I don't think it's for LN2 cooling.
If you look at the overclocking chart, the 9950 overclock does not have an asterisk, while the Phenom II chart, does. Why? It's not for liquid or air, just for overclock.
Is this another "simulated" results asterisk? I'm just curious, since they explained the other asterisk, and not the overclock asterisk.
November 16, 2008 4:27:42 PM

I'll just say, look a little closer at the slide.

[edit]

At the 2 bullet points above the "MASSIVE HEADROOM" for overclocking bullet point.
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2008 4:29:15 PM

I think the asterisk refers to the ACC and Overdrive mentioned in the text on the left side, or vice versa.
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2008 4:30:24 PM

pie was faster


this time... :heink:  :D 
November 16, 2008 4:30:51 PM

+1 piesquared so true
November 16, 2008 4:34:27 PM

I see.
So, they are basing this overclock result on those 2 applications being used, as well.
But couldn't the 9950 also use the same ACC and Overdrive applications? There has been 9950's overclocking higher with the newer SB750 chipset. So, why not use the ACC and Overdrive with the 9950 as well? Or does the ACC and Overdrive only work with the Phenom II?

I'm not familiar with AMD setups, so I am just trying to understand the marketing being used here.
November 16, 2008 4:35:42 PM

Not bad. The 3.0ghz unlocked one ill check out. If it decisevely beats the current Intel quads (not i7....) for around $200 ill hop on it.
November 16, 2008 4:46:39 PM

I don't think that the Deneb cores will be anything faster than what has been achieved with the latest chips from Intel, but if I were going for a new pc setup sometime later next year(or something like that), I would be far more interested in the deneb cores than what has been released from Intel.

I earlier heard about stability problems when the Phenoms was released, especially when old Windows games was executed and in this regard I'm concerned about how good the Phenoms really are.

Anyone here who has tested the Phenoms and know if they worked good with older Windows games?

I have heard good things about Phenoms too and I suspect that Linux would, perhaps, treat it a bit better than what Windows has had and still does. And when I'm saying Windows here, I'm talking about Windows XP.
November 16, 2008 4:52:14 PM

I really really hope AMD pulls this off.

a b à CPUs
November 16, 2008 4:52:28 PM

well yeah, acc and overdrive work on the current phenoms as well... but I don't think this whole thing is necesseraly that complicated. They are just trying to market their software along the hardware and/or trying to show how much better the new phenom II will be than the current ones.

and if you look at the slide from top to bottom, the word overclock on the diagram comes 'first' on the right hand side. or something...
November 16, 2008 4:57:02 PM

Agree with Khelben. Im more interested in the Phenom II than I am i7 right now. I just dont have the money for a $320 i7 and a $250 motherboard, and then even more cash spilt for DDR3. At least with these Phenom II's I can run the 940 on an existing AM2+ 790FX and use my current OCZ Reapers instead of having to buy DDR3 and tossing this.

If they dont beat the Q9450/Q9550 for a lower/similar price, ill just hang on to my Q6600.
November 16, 2008 5:14:04 PM

NMDante said:
So, they are basing this overclock result on those 2 applications being used, as well.
But couldn't the 9950 also use the same ACC and Overdrive applications?



ACC is not an application. It is a bios setting.

Overdrive is a software application that allows you to change things without rebooting. You can still overclock using the bios. (Which is nearly always better anyway.)
November 16, 2008 5:42:54 PM

so we're probably looking at a $200-250 price range, possibly upwards to $300

then maybe a price drop in march/april to keep everything around the <=$200 price point
November 16, 2008 5:44:44 PM

keithlm said:
ACC is not an application. It is a bios setting.

Overdrive is a software application that allows you to change things without rebooting. You can still overclock using the bios. (Which is nearly always better anyway.)

Okay. So, ACC is a BIOS setting and Overdrive is software based.

But that doesn't explain how the Phenom II 940 has a seemingly endless "headroom" to overclock, based on the chart shown, when using the same technology that is available for the Phenom, now.

Is all this headroom available simply due to a shrink to 45nm? It's definitely not due to power usage, especially considering that the TDP of the 940 is 125W, and the 9950 had a TDP that ranged from 125 to 140W. So, 0-15W difference and 45nm shrink equals unlimited overclocking headroom? That's a bold statement to make, and one that will be challenged, I predict.
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2008 5:58:43 PM

but then again the shanghai at 2,7GHz has TDP of 75W, so it might just be that they have overrated the TDP value for some reason (future faster chips within the same group??). The extra 300MHz shouldn't increase powerusage by 50W....

and lol at unlimited
November 16, 2008 6:02:45 PM

Definitely a bold statement. I don't believe it for a minute either. I am guessing it to be on par with the Kentsfield, maybe a slight edge. They will gain some headroom for overclocking on the die shrink but not some kind of magical, no ceiling, no thermal issues, fairy tale.
November 16, 2008 6:10:54 PM

It's a good sign that all you Intel surrogates can come up with is that AMD put an arrow on the top of one of their bars. lol
November 16, 2008 6:11:54 PM

Kari said:
but then again the shanghai at 2,7GHz has TDP of 75W, so it might just be that they have overrated the TDP value for some reason (future faster chips within the same group??). The extra 300MHz shouldn't increase powerusage by 50W....

and lol at unlimited


Yes, the unlimited might be a stretch...but when did you ever see a CPU company tout it's CPU's overclocking ability? Or add a chart that ends at 4GHz, yet the overclocking arrow goes on beyond? That would seem to make it look infinite, imo. And to achieve 4+GHz with nothing more than a liquid cooling setup and not a more exotic cooling solution (ie. LN2, peltier, phase change) would be impressive.

As for the TDP...who knows. I thought AMD used the ACP rating for it's thermal limits.
November 16, 2008 6:12:24 PM

Well come on.. That is borderline ridiculous. I buy from both but that doesn't mean I am falling for a marketing ploy.
November 16, 2008 6:13:18 PM

"Massive Headroom"?
Does that refer to the empty space inside the head of a person that goes on OCing that processor?
November 16, 2008 6:16:58 PM

piesquared said:
It's a good sign that all you Intel surrogates can come up with is that AMD put an arrow on the top of one of their bars. lol

Well, it's a slide. What did you expect? That people would take a slide show as proof of anything?
The problem with the "arrow on the top of one of their bars" is simply this - If Phenom II 940 does not overclock past 4Ghz, as stated...then would this be considered misleading or false advertising? What if people who get a 940 cannot overclock them past 3.5Ghz? False adverting?

I will wait until 3rd party testing results surface. Until then, I will have questions about the claims that AMD is making in their slide show.
November 16, 2008 6:17:28 PM

Dont forget to take the 750SB into account here.
November 16, 2008 6:20:33 PM

Ycon said:
"Massive Headroom"?
Does that refer to the empty space inside the head of a person that goes on OCing that processor?



*shrug*

You never know, they may be able to repeat the ATi4000 series here. Nobody expected them to release a GPU that was going to hit the right price/performance point. If they give enough power for a low enough cost then people will use them. I know we are on an enthusiast forum, and most people overclock, however if the stock performance is good enough, with a price point that reflects it you'll find they sell.

Not being fanboyish here, just thinking that if they price agressively then if nothing else the Intel CPUs will also have to come down in price. At the moment an e8600 is roughly GBP£200 (about USD$300), if (and i'll be the 1st to admit it's a big IF) AMD can fire out similar performance for £50 less they'll sell like hot cokes on a cold day.
November 16, 2008 6:22:09 PM

NMDante said:
Yes, the unlimited might be a stretch...but when did you ever see a CPU company tout it's CPU's overclocking ability? Or add a chart that ends at 4GHz, yet the overclocking arrow goes on beyond? That would seem to make it look infinite, imo. And to achieve 4+GHz with nothing more than a liquid cooling setup and not a more exotic cooling solution (ie. LN2, peltier, phase change) would be impressive.

As for the TDP...who knows. I thought AMD used the ACP rating for it's thermal limits.


Seriously now, are you suggesting, that AMD is suggesting, that these will overclock infinitly because they put an arrow on top of the bar? I am literally LOL......

I'll suggest that AMD assumes anyone reading that slide have a little more common sense than that. Well, evidently not everyone.

And finally, this is starting to sound pretty desperate, NMDante:

Quote:
but when did you ever see a CPU company tout it's CPU's overclocking ability?


Now, surely you can see the lolz in that statement.
November 16, 2008 6:34:12 PM

spathotan said:
Dont forget to take the 750SB into account here.

I did mention the SB750 chipset in an earlier post.

piesquared said:
Seriously now, are you suggesting, that AMD is suggesting, that these will overclock infinitly because they put an arrow on top of the bar? I am literally LOL......

I'll suggest that AMD assumes anyone reading that slide have a little more common sense than that. Well, evidently not everyone.

And finally, this is starting to sound pretty desperate, NMDante:

Quote:
but when did you ever see a CPU company tout it's CPU's overclocking ability?


Now, surely you can see the lolz in that statement.

Show me where Intel claimed that it's CPUs can overclock pass it's stock frequency. Please. Show me.
Also,I suppose AMD does not need to make any claims that overclocking can result in damage to the CPU or other components, if done incorrectly. So, Joe Schmo off the street should be able to hit 3.7GHz using just ACC and Overdrive easily, as long as he is using a Phenom II 940 CPU, right? That's what that slide is telling me.
As for the arrow in the chart...I know exactly what it represents, and unfortunately, since AMD has place it there, they will have to live up to the fact that they are claiming that with simple liquid cooling, a 4+Ghz overclock is achievable. Not an expensive liquid cooling setup, but any liquid cooling setup. Okay.
Who is sounding desperate? I'm looking at this just as it is - marketing. Nothing more. Thank you.

roofus said:
Well come on.. That is borderline ridiculous. I buy from both but that doesn't mean I am falling for a marketing ploy.

It is borderline ridiculous, but the slide was made by AMD, so the claims they are making now on this slide, will either come true to be egg on their face. Yes, it could be a marketing ploy, but how many other marketing ploys made claims that were challenged and didn't live up to their claims?

I'm sure that the overclocking ability of Phenom II isn't unlimited. I was exaggerating, as was the chart. But making claims that a CPU can overclock to a given speed is a bit reckless. So, if Joe Schmo buys a Phenom II and tries to overclock it, and destroys his CPU in the process...who's fault is it? Joe Schmo or AMD for claiming it was easy to achieve with ACC and Overdrive?
November 16, 2008 6:35:28 PM

The BE's are just that, and not 1000$. Im implying that alot of people can afford a BE, and tout away they will. I just hope what Ive heard either comes true, or makes no difference. Ive heard Intel may have a few newer cpus to come out yet....possibly faster ones
November 16, 2008 6:42:44 PM

Quote:
Show me where Intel claimed that it's CPUs can overclock pass it's stock frequency


You're kidding right, what do you suppose turbo is, just a trick that actually means anti-turbo?
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2008 6:59:22 PM

don't you remember that video clip from year ago where they had this young boy demonstrate how easy it was to overclock using the overdrive application?? :p 
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2008 7:01:34 PM

It will be a good enough overclock of it can hit 3.6 on Air. I'm really not to sure about it doing 4.0+ even with liquid cooling. We'll just have to wait and see. I'll be happy if it provides enough performance at 3.0 and is under $200 :D .
November 16, 2008 7:17:50 PM

piesquared said:
Quote:
Show me where Intel claimed that it's CPUs can overclock pass it's stock frequency


You're kidding right, what do you suppose turbo is, just a trick that actually means anti-turbo?

Good catch on Turbo, but Turbo is an application based core control, which gives a temporary overclock, than a real overclock.

Using Turbo will not overclock itself up to 3.8GHz on air, and 4+Ghz using liquid cooling, will it?
Are ACC and Overdrive all automatic overclocking on AMD systems, where you just set the frequency you want it to get to, and the CPU and motherboard will just get to that frequency?

Turbo, as I understand it, turns off cores when not needed, especially in single threaded apps. It does nothing permanent to the CPU frequency.
From Tom's:
Quote:
Although not quite like the retro turbo mode button found on computers of the late 1980’s, the turbo mode on Core i7 will still result in increased single threaded performance...In the following scenario for example, if you are using a Core i7 with 4 cores, and the game you are using uses only a single core, the other three cores will turn off, reducing the heat produced by your processor, allowing the only running core to be automatically overclocked for higher performance.


Kari said:
don't you remember that video clip from year ago where they had this young boy demonstrate how easy it was to overclock using the overdrive application?? :p 

To be honest, no. I don't really trust any application based overclocking, only because it's too easy to push the clock way to far than what the CPU or motherboard can handle, and by the time you realize what happened, it might be too late to stop the damage. They seem similar to ASUS' or Gigabyte's overclocking utilities included with their motherboard drivers CD.
I'm sure there may be safeguards to prevent going "crazy" on an overclock, but if I was to overclock again, I would do it via BIOS.
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2008 7:36:18 PM

overdrive had all these tests and stuff integarated into it to prevent any damage and possible stability issues, thats why it was so 'easy' to use. I'm sure it uses voltages within certain predetermined safety limits so it won't fry the chip.
And since when has excess clocks really permanently damaged a system, it just fails to boot and reverts to stock settings.

Or maybe it will go up in flames since it's not made by Intel :p 
November 16, 2008 7:54:36 PM

i think the arrow simply means that they can pass the 4ghz barrier... more likely to hit 4.05ghz or somewhere near (with ideal conditions of coarse)

imo the main thing these chips have going for them is that they still run on the am2+ socket with ddr2 memory. seems to make it a little more worth it if their claims for stock frequencies come true.

im not getting any hopes up for overclocking until 3rd party reviews start surfacing.
November 16, 2008 7:54:50 PM

What I dont understand is, if this all pans out, whats the BIG DEAL with HKMG? I mean, if they can hit 4Ghz on air? Maybe hype? Im sure it helps, but overhyped a lil?
November 16, 2008 8:00:11 PM

Kari said:
overdrive had all these tests and stuff integarated into it to prevent any damage and possible stability issues, thats why it was so 'easy' to use. I'm sure it uses voltages within certain predetermined safety limits so it won't fry the chip.
And since when has excess clocks really permanently damaged a system, it just fails to boot and reverts to stock settings.

Or maybe it will go up in flames since it's not made by Intel :p 

Yes, there is no real damage, as long as voltage settings aren't tweaked.
The thing about this chart is that no one has really shown Deneb's overclocking range yet, and now they are claiming it's simple, with the use of just ACC and Overdrive? I don't believe it to be that simple.

Yes, when a system is overclocked incorrectly, it usually just fails to boot, but that is when adjusting clock rates or mulitpliers, not voltages. To hit extreme frequency rates, the voltage will be adjusted, and that could result in both motherboard and/or CPU damage. What would happen if Joe Schmo puts the vCore setting to 3V, because the Windows based application allowed him to adjust vCore to that limit? Again, I have never used Overdrive, so I don't know if it has voltage limits in place, but I have seen utilities that did not have limits in place.

Again, that is not just for AMD, but Intel systems as well.
November 16, 2008 8:03:55 PM

megamanx00 said:
It will be a good enough overclock of it can hit 3.6 on Air. I'm really not to sure about it doing 4.0+ even with liquid cooling. We'll just have to wait and see. I'll be happy if it provides enough performance at 3.0 and is under $200 :D .


Now see, I would find that an impressive marketing gimmick. An AMD quad at 3.6 on air would be a significant accomplishment and one that you would have to tip your hat to. I want to see it before I believe but GJ if they succeed. Then they can stop hearing how the Q6600 is the better deal.
November 16, 2008 8:05:51 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
What I dont understand is, if this all pans out, whats the BIG DEAL with HKMG? I mean, if they can hit 4Ghz on air? Maybe hype? Im sure it helps, but overhyped a lil?

It doesn't show it hitting 4GHz on air. It shows 4Ghz and above on liquid cooling.

If you don't think HKMG is a big deal, then petition AMD not to use it. If you want to know what the big deal is with HKMG, just google it's advantages. Here's an article from IBM about HKMG.
November 16, 2008 8:06:35 PM

roofus said:
Now see, I would find that an impressive marketing gimmick. An AMD quad at 3.6 on air would be a significant accomplishment and one that you would have to tip your hat to. I want to see it before I believe but GJ if they succeed. Then they can stop hearing how the Q6600 is the better deal.


The problem is q6600 does more work per clock, so at the same 3.6ghz, performance is still lower. :whistle: 
November 16, 2008 8:06:45 PM

NMDante said:
What would happen if Joe Schmo puts the vCore setting to 3V, because the Windows based application allowed him to adjust vCore to that limit? Again, I have never used Overdrive, so I don't know if it has voltage limits in place, but I have seen utilities that did not have limits in place.


The vcore limit in AOD is 1.45V. There is a way to allow it to let you go to 1.55V if you tweak a config setting.

Joe the Enthusiast would have to reprogram the application to allow higher than 1.55V.

dagger said:
The problem is q6600 does more work per clock, so at the same 3.6ghz, performance is still lower. :whistle: 


That has not been proven at those speeds. As the chips go up in frequency the amount of work per clock does not increase linearly. So the only question at this point would be which architecture would scale up better?
November 16, 2008 8:11:01 PM

keithlm said:
The vcore limit in AOD is 1.45V. There is a way to allow it to let you go to 1.55V if you tweak a config setting.

Joe the Enthusiast would have to reprogram the application to allow higher than 1.55V.

Thanks.

I didn't know if AOD had a limit or not for adjusting voltages. That would make it much "safer" for the average Joe to tinker around with overclocking, for sure. At least they won't blow up capacitors and/or voltage regulators by setting it to 2.5V or higher, and hitting the "save configuration" button.
November 16, 2008 8:11:16 PM

OK, even 3.6 on air and still no HKMG. Maybe its not really needede yet, or only on bulk at those speeds?
!