AMD Phenom II 940 "Xtremely" Benchmarked

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] 91&page=10

Quote :

SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 4.45GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Inter-Core Latency : 76ns
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Performance vs. Speed
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 1.51MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Inter-Core Latency : 0.03ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Detailed Benchmark Results
Processor Affinity : CPU0-CPU2 CPU1-CPU3
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 2x 8kB : 4.38GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 4x 8kB : 4.65GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 2x 32kB : 4.87GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 4x 32kB : 4.85GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 16x 8kB : 4.66GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 2x 128kB : 5.03GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 4x 128kB : 4.72GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 16x 32kB : 4.77GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 64x 8kB : 4.40GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 16x 128kB : 4.40GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 64x 32kB : 4.58GB/s
Inter-Core Bandwidth @ 64x 128kB : 2.66GB/s

Performance Test Status
Run ID : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor (Quad-Core, 3.01GHz, 4x 512kB L2, 6MB L3)
Platform Compliance : Win64 x64
Buffering Used : Yes
NUMA Support : No
SMP (Multi-Processor) Benchmark : No
Total Test Threads : 4
Multi-Core Test : Yes
SMT (Multi-Threaded) Benchmark : No
System Timer : 14.32MHz

Processor
Model : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor
Speed : 3.01GHz
Model Number : 9024
Cores per Processor : 4 Unit(s)
Type : Quad-Core
L2 On-board Cache : 4x 512kB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 16-way, 64 byte line size
L3 On-board Cache : 6MB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 48-way, 64 byte line size, 4 threads sharing

GTA IV benchmark - 3.0 ghz, 2ghz NB 2ghz HT 50 draw distance 100 detail distance 1280x1024 + Radeon 4870X2

3.6ghz 3dmark 06 1920x1200 (*note this is *NOT* the default run*)

3.0ghz, 2.0ghz NB

Quote :

SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Multi-Media Int x16 iSSE2 : 170280iit/s
Multi-Media Float x8 iSSE2 : 223516fit/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Performance vs. Speed
Multi-Media Int x16 iSSE2 : 56.61iit/s/MHz
Multi-Media Float x8 iSSE2 : 74.31fit/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Performance Test Status
Run ID : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor (Quad-Core, 3.01GHz, 4x 512kB L2, 6MB L3)
Platform Compliance : Win64 x64
NUMA Support : No
SMP (Multi-Processor) Benchmark : No
Total Test Threads : 4
Multi-Core Test : Yes
Cores per Processor : 4
SMT (Multi-Threaded) Benchmark : No
Processor Affinity : P0C0T0 P0C1T0 P0C2T0 P0C3T0
System Timer : 14.32MHz
Rendered Image Size : 640x480

Quote :

SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Dhrystone ALU : 41008MIPS
Whetstone iSSE3 : 34658MFLOPS
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Performance vs. Speed
Dhrystone ALU : 13.63MIPS/MHz
Whetstone iSSE3 : 11.52MFLOPS/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Quote :

Benchmark Results
Cache/Memory Bandwidth : 40.74GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Speed Factor : 36.50
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Performance vs. Speed
Cache/Memory Bandwidth : 13.87MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Float SSE2 Cache/Memory Results Breakdown
Data Item Size : 16bytes
Buffering Used : No
Offset Displacement Used : Yes

Detailed Benchmark Results
2kB Blocks : 152.92GB/s
4kB Blocks : 190.88GB/s
8kB Blocks : 195.38GB/s
16kB Blocks : 198.55GB/s
32kB Blocks : 210.45GB/s
64kB Blocks : 185.46GB/s
128kB Blocks : 169.42GB/s
256kB Blocks : 151.32GB/s
512kB Blocks : 99.10GB/s
1MB Blocks : 84.62GB/s
4MB Blocks : 35.76GB/s
16MB Blocks : 7.52GB/s
64MB Blocks : 5.77GB/s
256MB Blocks : 5.77GB/s
1GB Blocks : 5.83GB/s

Performance Test Status
Run ID : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor (Quad-Core, 3.01GHz, 4x 512kB L2, 6MB L3); AMD ??? (9600); 1x 4GB DDR2 PC2-17200 (5.0-5-4-8)
Platform Compliance : Win64 x64
NUMA Support : No
SMP (Multi-Processor) Benchmark : No
Total Test Threads : 4
Multi-Core Test : Yes
SMT (Multi-Threaded) Benchmark : No
Processor Affinity : P0C0T0 P0C1T0 P0C2T0 P0C3T0
System Timer : 14.32MHz
Page Size : 4kB
Use Large Memory Pages : No

Processor
Model : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor
Speed : 3.01GHz
Model Number : 9024
Cores per Processor : 4 Unit(s)
Type : Quad-Core
L2 On-board Cache : 4x 512kB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 16-way, 64 byte line size
L3 On-board Cache : 6MB, ECC, Synchronous, Write-Back, 48-way, 64 byte line size, 4 threads sharing

Features
SSE Technology : Yes
SSE2 Technology : Yes
SSE3 Technology : Yes
Supplemental SSE3 Technology : No
SSE4.1 Technology : No
SSE4.2 Technology : No
EMMX - Extended MMX Technology : Yes
SSE4A Technology : Yes
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : No

Chipset 1
Model : ASUS ??? (9600)
Revision : A1
Front Side Bus Speed : 1x 201MHz (201MHz)
In/Out Width : 16-bit / 16-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 804MB/s

Chipset 2
Model : AMD (Family 10h) Athlon64/Opteron/Sempron HyperTransport Technology Configuration
Revision : A1
Front Side Bus Speed : 2x 2.01GHz (4.02GHz)
In/Out Width : 16-bit / 16-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 15.70GB/s

Logical/Chipset 2 Memory Banks
Bank 0 : 2GB DDR2 5.0-5-4-8 CR3
Bank 1 : 2GB DDR2 5.0-5-4-8 CR3
Channels : 1
Bank Interleave : 2-way
Memory Bus Speed : 2x 536MHz (1.07GHz)
Multiplier : 8/3x
Width : 128-bit
Memory Controller in Processor : Yes
Cores per Memory Controller : 4 Unit(s)
Maximum Memory Bus Bandwidth : 16.75GB/s

Quote :

Benchmark Results
Int Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth : 11.18GB/s
Float Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth : 11.18GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Performance vs. Speed
Int Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth : 10.68MB/s/MHz
Float Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth : 10.68MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Int Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth
Assignment : 10.93GB/s
Scaling : 10.89GB/s
Addition : 11.49GB/s
Triad : 11.42GB/s
Data Item Size : 16bytes
Buffering Used : Yes
Offset Displacement Used : Yes
Bandwidth Efficiency : 66.77%

Float Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth
Assignment : 10.94GB/s
Scaling : 10.86GB/s
Addition : 11.49GB/s
Triad : 11.44GB/s
Data Item Size : 16bytes
Buffering Used : Yes
Offset Displacement Used : Yes
Bandwidth Efficiency : 66.76%

Quote :

Benchmark Results
Memory (Random Access) Latency : 89ns
Speed Factor : 83.40
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Performance vs. Speed
Memory (Random Access) Latency : 0.08ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Detailed Benchmark Results
1kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
4kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
16kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
64kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
256kB Range : 16clocks / 5ns
1MB Range : 56clocks / 19ns
4MB Range : 86clocks / 29ns
16MB Range : 248clocks / 83ns
64MB Range : 266clocks / 89ns

Quote :

Benchmark Results
Memory (Linear Access) Latency : 14ns
Speed Factor : 13.90
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Performance vs. Speed
Memory (Linear Access) Latency : 0.01ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Detailed Benchmark Results
1kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
4kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
16kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
64kB Range : 3clocks / 1ns
256kB Range : 10clocks / 3ns
1MB Range : 22clocks / 7ns
4MB Range : 25clocks / 8ns
16MB Range : 44clocks / 15ns
64MB Range : 43clocks / 14ns

'Xtreme Regards' to Xtremesystem's iocedmyself

Message edited by dattimr on 12-15-2008 at 06:56:33 PM

Add a reply

Register or log in to remove.

In their defense the Q6600 was one of the best CPUs ever made considering price and what other CPUs were in the market at the time it reigned supreme.

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ Antec Nine Hundred, Gigabyte P35-DS3R, Intel Q6600 @ 3.2 Ghz, Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme, eVGA 8800GT 512MB, G-Skill 4GB (2x2GB) DDR2-800 4-4-4-10, Seasonic S12 ATX 650W, Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB SATA, 26" LCD Monitor (1900x1200), Windows XP Pr
Reply to deuce271

roadrunner197069 wrote :

Wow, they finally can compete with Q6600 that is now at the end of its life.

I wont be impressed until they compete with core i7.

First of all, Core i7 has been having a hard time competing against Core 2 outside of the synthetic/image&video editing/encoding world.

Also, the Phenom II 940 Cinebench scores looked impressive, but I don't remember the ones from Core i7, so I won't comment on this by now.

Second, do you have the numbers of a Q6600 (at 3ghz) paired with a 4870X2 in the GTA IV test and/or 3Dmark 06 - 1920x1200 (at 3.6ghz)?

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to dattimr

wootwoot! go AMD, bout bloody time you give us a "REAL" quadcore. not this phenom 2.6GHZ crap.

im saving my money for this new deneb CPU. looks like hope for all of us AMD people. i just hope that the rumors are true that some of the PhenomII CPUs will fit in the AM2+ socket.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to rambo117

Good enough for me, lets hope the price fits.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to pr2thej

pr2thej wrote :

Good enough for me, lets hope the price fits.

yes, that to

Reply to rambo117

Road runner your the true meaning of the word "fanboy".

Message quoted 2 times

Reply to zipzoomflyhigh

zipzoomflyhigh wrote :

"fanboy".

7 posts in, new record?

Reply to pr2thej

it is irrelevant how it stacks up to i7. AMD is aiming this at the mainstream, not niche buyers. looks very promising!

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to roofus

What's with the 3Dmark score? Something isn't right, the CPU score is way too low. An E7200 would have a score like that most likely.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to icyicy

Im not a fanboy, Im happy you AMD fanboys can finally have something similar to what everyone has had for quite sometime.

If the price is right, I will probably build quite a few AMD rigs.

I hope AMD can compete with i7 real soon. I love price wars.

Deneb is still slightly behind q6600 so they got a little more work to do.

I have a feeling AMD will price Denebs closer to i7 920 prices rather than as low as q6600. If they do it will be an epic fail. The only edge they will have vs i7 is you wont need a new mobo and ram to get a Deneb, so it will be a good upgrade path: however, if your building a rig from scratch it Deneb wont be the wisest choice performance wise.

Message quoted 2 times

Reply to roadrunner197069

roadrunner197069 wrote :

Im not a fanboy, Im happy you AMD fanboys can finally have something similar to what everyone has had for quite sometime.

If the price is right, I will probably build quite a few AMD rigs.

I hope AMD can compete with i7 real soon. I love price wars.

Deneb is still slightly behind q6600 so they got a little more work to do.

I have a feeling AMD will price Denebs closer to i7 920 prices rather than as low as q6600. If they do it will be an epic fail. The only edge they will have vs i7 is you wont need a new mobo and ram to get a Deneb, so it will be a good upgrade path: however, if your building a rig from scratch it Deneb wont be the wisest choice performance wise.

hey! dont look down on us buddy
i am quite happy with my AMD gaming rig, sure id go for intel any day but considering the prices, im stickin with AMD

Reply to rambo117

Yeah, if you read the boards over at xtremesystems, it appears he may have some driver issues hampering his 4870x2.

And yes, his 3dmark score is low because it's run at 1920x1200, not the standard resolution...

Reply to Malovane

^ Yeah, I knew I should have written the resolution in bold.

Reply to dattimr

And this isnt fully tweaked either. At the same clocks, you can still do a few things to speed things up, just like i7 can, but not the older Intels

Message edited by jaydeejohn on 12-15-2008 at 06:20:19 PM

------------------------------ I went drifting, thru the capitols of tin, where men cant walk and cant freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in
Reply to jaydeejohn

roadrunner197069 wrote :

Core i7 shines every where. Only place it dont is in single GPU setups.

Dont be hating the processor because the best single GPUs cant keep up with it.

Im not impressed by the cinebench at all. Here is some i7 ones.

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.ph [...] 8d022g.jpg

Like I said, not impressed til they compete with i7.

Im happy you AMD fans can finally have the speed the rest of us had for sometime now.

3dmark 06 with 2 4870s and a q6600 3.6 is 22000+, I can get my buddy to give me a screenshot if you really need it.

Before anything else, please note that I openly state I'm a 'fan' of the Intel brand.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipse [...] =3448&p=17

It seems Anand found the results of i7-965 way lower than those of your 920 (although still higher than the ones I posted here for Phenom II), but, since you showed a screenshot...

Phenom I can already compete fair enough with the Q6600, except for the overclocking frenzy, but you're clearly misleaded if you think Deneb will lose for this one.

Regarding your friend's 3Dmark06 score, well, I don't doubt it, but in no way he's going to score that at 1920x1200. Not even at 4ghz. Besides, why the unfair comparison? Have you noted the resolution of the 3Dmark run I posted? Post a screenshot with his scores at the resolution I stated, but with a 4870X2 (you may argue the X2 results will be even better, but driver issues could make the results flawed and most of the components used in a useful comparison must be the same whenever possible).

Reply to dattimr

I missed the resolution. My bad.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to roadrunner197069

Here is some more to look at. I think they are respectable gains, not to mention the overclocking headroom that is rumored. http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id- [...] marks.html

Reply to roofus

icyicy wrote :

What's with the 3Dmark score? Something isn't right, the CPU score is way too low. An E7200 would have a score like that most likely.

My E6750 @ 3.7Ghz scores roughly 3200 on the CPU score. I don't think an E7200 is going to score over 4500 points. "Most likely", it will not score 1300+ more points than my cpu.

Reply to one-shot

Nice find. PII looks very promising. Also his findings (in the thread) that you can undervolt it significantly and stay stable explain something that has been bothering me for a while (which was, why are the AM3's 95W TDP and the AM2+'s 125W TDP). It now seems AMD just set the voltage a little too high on these and the AM3's will have this corrected.

Message edited by EXT64 on 12-15-2008 at 06:33:16 PM

------------------------------ Phenom II X4 940 BE 3.0GHz - 1.25V > GA-MA790GP-DS4H > XFX ATI 4850 1GB > 4GB OCZ Platinum 1066MHz 5-5-5-15-2T > PCP&C 610W
Athlon II X2 250 3.0GHz > GA-MA770T-UD3P > Sapphire ATI 4650 512MB DDR3 > 4GB OCZ Platinum 1600MHz@1066MHz > XP/Win7 Enter 64
Reply to EXT64

roadrunner197069 wrote :

I missed the resolution. My bad.

No problem. I should have put the resolution in bold. Anyway, I really like the i7, but if Phenom II improves multi-gpu gaming too, then I would see little to no benefit in my next upgrade being a Nehalem. But if someone is into video-encoding and/or image editing (where Intel usually has the lead, like big time this time), then I agree it should cast all fears aside and get an i7.

For anything else, wait until the official Deneb launch just to be sure.

Message edited by dattimr on 12-15-2008 at 06:40:13 PM

Reply to dattimr

It came out better than expected, sorta like the 4xxx series. This will be good for all

------------------------------ I went drifting, thru the capitols of tin, where men cant walk and cant freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in
Reply to jaydeejohn

Yes I have a 965 chipset and a e6300 at 3ghz. Works for me. Your putting me down for that? I bought it 3 years ago for $90 mobo and $160 cpu. I love laughing at people who pay $300 to Intel for a new chipset mobo for 15% performance gain, such a shame your so uninformed. Its great Roadrunner that you saved your allowance all year and bought a new system. I'm more inclined to pay off my mortgage, my new honda civic, my suv and my 21ft boat.

Quote :

I wont be impressed until they compete with core i7.

Well it took Intel 2 1/2 years to catch AMD with C2D, so I think AMD is right back where they always were, mainstream and lower end.

Message quoted 2 times
Message edited by zipzoomflyhigh on 12-15-2008 at 06:47:53 PM

Reply to zipzoomflyhigh

Is it just me or the resolution of the CPU test in 3dmark runs at 640*480? independent of the chosen resolution?
I think the CPU test of the 3dmark is completely "separated" from graphics and i think it runs at a fixed resolution.

Message edited by soark on 12-15-2008 at 06:50:40 PM

Reply to soark

By the way, does anyone have a GTA IV benchmark screen with a Penryn or i7 + 4870X2 so that we could compare the results?

Reply to dattimr

roofus wrote :

it is irrelevant how it stacks up to i7. AMD is aiming this at the mainstream, not niche buyers. looks very promising!

HAHAHAHHAHHAHA

That's funny.

AMD isn't aiming for mediocrity. AMD is aiming for as high as they can get, which lately has been mediocrity. Don't confuse lack of execution with "aiming for mainstream".

Phenom II is still looking much more promising than Phenom.

Message quoted 4 times

------------------------------ jennyh wrote: AMD break-even Q4 2009. *Gauranteed*

RabidFanboysSpreadingFalse.Info
Reply to TechnologyCoordinator

Yea, the 4xxx series wasnt trying to be the top, and they werent, but they were better than the 3xxx series

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ I went drifting, thru the capitols of tin, where men cant walk and cant freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in
Reply to jaydeejohn

TechnologyCoordinator wrote :

HAHAHAHHAHHAHA

That's funny.

AMD isn't aiming for mediocrity. AMD is aiming for as high as they can get, which lately has been mediocrity. Don't confuse lack of execution with "aiming for mainstream".

Phenom II is still looking much more promising than Phenom.

phenom was a total bomb IMO. i mean, first the annoying TLB bug, second, frecuencies were stuck below 3GHZ. well, at least they dropped $50-$80 off their phenom series buit i wouldnt even waste money on one. im perfectly happy with my 3.4GHZ 5000+ BE
until phenomII comes out that is....

Reply to rambo117

TechnologyCoordinator wrote :

HAHAHAHHAHHAHA

That's funny.

AMD isn't aiming for mediocrity. AMD is aiming for as high as they can get, which lately has been mediocrity. Don't confuse lack of execution with "aiming for mainstream".

Phenom II is still looking much more promising than Phenom.

Should I write it differently, I.. Well, I think I couldn't. Perfect post.

Reply to dattimr

jaydeejohn wrote :

Yea, the 4xxx series wasnt trying to be the top, and they werent, but they were better than the 3xxx series

By a fair margin. However, the 4xxx series strategy was already planned before the acquisition of ATI by AMD. Phenom was touted as being a Conroe killer - and it failed miserably.

Now show me a decent non-half-baked AM3 mobo and I'll get me a Phenom II.

Message edited by dattimr on 12-15-2008 at 07:20:21 PM

Reply to dattimr

What I meant was, yes, the 2900 was a bomb too, and the 3870 was meh, but they turned that into a 4xxx series also. Starting with Barcy, and ending with P2, we have something similar happening. Its not how theyre performing now, its what they have to work with, and how theyre going about it, which is pretty decent actually. Unfortunately, theyve had to live with both Barcy and the 2900, and evolve from there

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ I went drifting, thru the capitols of tin, where men cant walk and cant freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in
Reply to jaydeejohn

Indeed. I understand your point. It's just that, actually, I was talking in response to what roofus and TC posted.

But it looks like AMD is slowly getting its act together. My biggest personal hope is that they succeed with SB800 and, for their own perpetuation, with Fusion.

Message edited by dattimr on 12-15-2008 at 07:31:51 PM

Reply to dattimr

whats the whole deal with fusion anyways? i dont understand what it's perpose is...

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to rambo117

rambo117 wrote :

whats the whole deal with fusion anyways? i dont understand what it's perpose is...

CPU + GPU in the same die. It's one step further into a single chip solution.

By the way, excuse me, but what's the deal with your photo? <- I really liked it! It remembers me of "The Dark Eye" (a PC game based on Poe's writtings, which is simply lovely and frightening, I must say).

Reply to dattimr

I hope this is a turnpoint for AMD and that they can put something good on the market to rival Intel. No need for taking sides here because this will ultimately benefit us, the consumer :sol:

Reply to universedo

so the real question is, how much is this sh!t going to cost? lol

Reply to kamkal

TechnologyCoordinator wrote :

HAHAHAHHAHHAHA

That's funny.

AMD isn't aiming for mediocrity. AMD is aiming for as high as they can get, which lately has been mediocrity. Don't confuse lack of execution with "aiming for mainstream".

Phenom II is still looking much more promising than Phenom.

i think you managed to miss my point entirely. they don't HAVE to beat the i7. make it reliable, inexpensive and tons of them and you will curry favor with OEM's. the i7 is fantastic, no two ways about it but it is not a mainstream CPU. give it a couple days before you assume the Deneb wont hold its own against the i7. i am patiently waiting to decide how to spend my money lol

Reply to roofus

IMO I dont see quads to be mainstream yet period. I dont think the majority of OEM systems are built with quad cores. The user/usage they are mainly used for just doesnt need a quad.

As most of the know even if the P2 spanked i7 most oems and buyers would still by intel simply cause of the name anyways.

Reply to someguy7

Start of the turnaround.
Good work.

Reply to mi1ez

TechnologyCoordinator wrote :

HAHAHAHHAHHAHA

That's funny.

AMD isn't aiming for mediocrity. AMD is aiming for as high as they can get, which lately has been mediocrity. Don't confuse lack of execution with "aiming for mainstream".

Phenom II is still looking much more promising than Phenom.

Still, the mainstream is a market that both companies aim at. Phenom was aimed at the mainstream because there were no performance models. Phenom II looks to be competitive with Core 2 performance, but not i7 in certain apps. It might do better in general gaming.

Me, I'm sticking with my quite fun "triple cripple" for all of 2009, though I'm waiting to get my 3870x2 repaired and back to me. Using the HD3200 for now (good enough for LOTRO).

When I do upgrade in 2010, it will be to a less expensive Phenom II, probably a triple core.

------------------------------ Phenom 8750, ASUS M3A78T
4 gigs Kingston DDR2 800 two 1T SAMSUNG HD103UI
Sapphire 4870x2, Sony BDU-X10S BD-ROM
Antec Neo 650 PSU Antec Nine Hundred, Acer H213H 1080p LCD
Reply to yipsl

zipzoomflyhigh wrote :

Yes I have a 965 chipset and a e6300 at 3ghz. Works for me. Your putting me down for that? I bought it 3 years ago for $90 mobo and $160 cpu. I love laughing at people who pay $300 to Intel for a new chipset mobo for 15% performance gain, such a shame your so uninformed. Its great Roadrunner that you saved your allowance all year and bought a new system. I'm more inclined to pay off my mortgage, my new honda civic, my suv and my 21ft boat.

Quote :

I wont be impressed until they compete with core i7.

Well it took Intel 2 1/2 years to catch AMD with C2D, so I think AMD is right back where they always were, mainstream and lower end.

Oh for Heaven's sake, can you inflate your ego more? :pfff: Let's try to act like adults who post on an adult forum, mm-k?

I'm inclined to agree with roadrunner1. Since AMD is releasing this new Phenom NOW, they essentially force themselves to be compared to the i7's which Intel JUST released. If the new Phenoms come out and match, or just beat the Q6600 then it isn't all that impressive for AMD, considering that STILL means they are behind Intel.

I'm running my first ever Intel chipset. Before my Q6600 I always had AMD chips. However, not being a "fanboy" of either company, I'm interested in whomever gives me the best product for my money.

If AMD is going to release a revised Phenom chipset, they need to come out with a bang and show the computer/gaming market that they can compete. Not that they can tag along.

For everyone's sake, I hope the new Phenom kicks butt, because that will mean price wars like we've recently seen between ATI & nVidia. It means EVERYONE wins. If Phenom is a let done (as the first release was) then it means we're all paying extra for our Intel chips.

I think this is what roadrunner1 was trying to get across in the first place. I don't see that he had any bias toward Intel or AMD, but was stating some good factual points.

------------------------------ Intel Q6600 G0 SLACR @ 3.2Ghz/ Xigmatek HDT-S1283 / XFX 680i LT SLI
2x MSI GTX 260 Core 216 (655Mhz) / 4GB Corsair XMS2 DDR2-6400 (800Mhz)
Antec TPQ-850 / Thermaltake Armor VA8003BWS
Win 7 Home Premium / 2 x WD Caviar Black 1TB / WD 400GB
Reply to jerreece

yipsl wrote :

Still, the mainstream is a market that both companies aim at. Phenom was aimed at the mainstream because there were no performance models. Phenom II looks to be competitive with Core 2 performance, but not i7 in certain apps. It might do better in general gaming.

Yes, but AMD hasn't been able to profit with a mainstream "strategy". Yes, they do most of their business in mainstream.

Intel - Has a full lineup of processors. Top binning processors are sold at a premium. Low binning processors are mainstream

AMD - Does NOT have a full lineup of desktop processors. Top binning processors are sold in mainstream market. Low binning processors are basically given away in cereal boxes as prizes.

AMD needs to be more competitive with Intel's products to be profitable. Or are we still blaming the ATI acquisition?

Message quoted 2 times
Message edited by TechnologyCoordinator on 12-15-2008 at 08:49:32 PM

------------------------------ jennyh wrote: AMD break-even Q4 2009. *Gauranteed*

RabidFanboysSpreadingFalse.Info
Reply to TechnologyCoordinator

I don't have GTA-IV or Vista x64, but I do have EVEREST and Sandra to compare the i7 with. RAM is set to an XMP profile, OS is Vista 32, stock is 3.34GHz but frequently misreported by these utilities as 3.2GHz:

Quote :

SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 43.02GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Inter-Core Latency : 15ns
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Windows Experience Index
Current Processor(s) : 5.9
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Performance vs. Speed
Inter-Core Bandwidth : 13.74MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Inter-Core Latency : 0.00ns/MHz
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Detailed Benchmark Results
Processor Affinity : CPU0-CPU4 CPU1-CPU5 CPU2-CPU6 CPU3-CPU7
2x8kB Blocks Bandwidth : 101.41GB/s
4x8kB Blocks Bandwidth : 98.07GB/s
2x32kB Blocks Bandwidth : 77.30GB/s
4x32kB Blocks Bandwidth : 75.73GB/s
16x8kB Blocks Bandwidth : 86.93GB/s
2x128kB Blocks Bandwidth : 65.46GB/s
4x128kB Blocks Bandwidth : 27.22GB/s
16x32kB Blocks Bandwidth : 28.57GB/s
64x8kB Blocks Bandwidth : 28.29GB/s
16x128kB Blocks Bandwidth : 23.70GB/s
64x32kB Blocks Bandwidth : 23.27GB/s
64x128kB Blocks Bandwidth : 9.99GB/s

Performance Test Status
Run ID : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 965 @ 3.20GHz (4C, HT, 3.21GHz, 4x 256kB L2, 8MB L3)
Platform Compliance : x86
Buffering Used : No
NUMA Support : No
SMP (Multi-Processor) Benchmark : Yes
Total Test Threads : 8
Multi-Core Test : Yes
Cores per Processor : 4
System Timer : 14.32MHz
Page Size : 4kB
Use Large Memory Pages : No

<< skipped Multimedia int x16 SSE2/float x8 SSE2 benches because this version of Sandra uses SSE4 at different precision and reports back in pixels/s instead of iterations >>

Quote :

Benchmark Results
Dhrystone iSSE4.2 : 84.38GIPS
Whetstone iSSE3 : 75.64GFLOPS
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Windows Experience Index
Current Processor(s) : 5.9
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Performance vs. Speed
Dhrystone iSSE4.2 : 26.31MIPS/MHz
Whetstone iSSE3 : 23.59MFLOPS/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Quote :

Benchmark Results
Cache/Memory Bandwidth : 72.18GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Speed Factor : 25.10
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Cache Information
Internal Data Cache : 274.59GB/s
L2 On-board Cache : 223.90GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Windows Experience Index
Current Chipset/Memory : 5.9
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Performance vs. Speed
Cache/Memory Bandwidth : 23.05MB/s/MHz
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Float SSE2 Cache/Memory Results Breakdown
Data Item Size : 16bytes
Buffering Used : No
Offset Displacement Used : Yes

Detailed Benchmark Results
2kB Blocks : 207.64GB/s
4kB Blocks : 213.85GB/s
8kB Blocks : 303.89GB/s
16kB Blocks : 316.90GB/s
32kB Blocks : 330.70GB/s
64kB Blocks : 319.03GB/s
128kB Blocks : 267.08GB/s
256kB Blocks : 180.73GB/s
512kB Blocks : 164.33GB/s
1MB Blocks : 161.67GB/s
4MB Blocks : 54.80GB/s
16MB Blocks : 16.97GB/s
64MB Blocks : 13.18GB/s
256MB Blocks : 13.16GB/s
1GB Blocks : 13.29GB/s

Performance Test Status
Run ID : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 965 @ 3.20GHz (4C, HT, 3.21GHz, 4x 256kB L2, 8MB L3); Intel X58 I/O Hub; 3x 1GB Corsair DIMM DDR3 PC3-10700 (6-8-8-24 6-32-4-8)
Platform Compliance : x86
Total Memory : 2.99GB
NUMA Support : No
SMP (Multi-Processor) Benchmark : No
Total Test Threads : 8
Multi-Core Test : Yes
SMT (Multi-Threaded) Benchmark : Yes
Processor Affinity : P0C0T0 P0C1T0 P0C2T0 P0C3T0 P0C0T1 P0C1T1 P0C2T1 P0C3T1
System Timer : 14.32MHz
Page Size : 4kB
Use Large Memory Pages : No

Processor
Model : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 965 @ 3.20GHz
Speed : 3.21GHz
Cores per Processor : 4 Unit(s)
Type : Quad-Core
L2 On-board Cache : 4x 256kB, ECC, Synchronous, ATC, 8-way, 64 byte line size, 2 threads sharing
L3 On-board Cache : 8MB, ECC, Synchronous, ATC, 16-way, Exclusive, 64 byte line size, 16 threads sharing

Features
SSE Technology : Yes
SSE2 Technology : Yes
SSE3 Technology : Yes
Supplemental SSE3 Technology : Yes
SSE4.1 Technology : Yes
SSE4.2 Technology : Yes
AVX - Advanced Vector eXtensions : No
FMA - Fused Multiply Add eXtensions : No
SSE4A Technology : No
SSE5 Technology : No
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : Yes

Chipset
Model : ASUS X58 I/O Hub
Revision : B3
Front Side Bus Speed : 1x 128MHz (128MHz)
In/Out Width : 20-bit / 20-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 512MB/s

Chipset
Model : Intel Core CPU Generic Non-Core Registers
Revision : A5
Front Side Bus Speed : 2x 3.07GHz (6.14GHz)
In/Out Width : 20-bit / 20-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 24GB/s

Logical/Chipset Memory Banks
Bank 0 : 1GB DDR3 6-8-8-24 6-32-4-8 2T
Bank 3 : 1GB DDR3 6-8-8-24 6-32-4-8 2T
Bank 6 : 1GB DDR3 6-8-8-24 6-32-4-8 2T
Channels : 3
Width : 64-bit
Memory Controller in Processor : Yes

Memory Module(s)
Memory Module : Corsair CM3X1G1600C8D 1GB DIMM DDR3 PC3-10700U DDR3-1334 9-9-9-24 5-34-10-5
Memory Module : Corsair CM3X1G1600C8D 1GB DIMM DDR3 PC3-10700U DDR3-1334 9-9-9-24 5-34-10-5
Memory Module : Corsair CM3X1G1600C8D 1GB DIMM DDR3 PC3-10700U DDR3-1334 9-9-9-24 5-34-10-5

Quote :

Benchmark Results
Int Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth : 23.97GB/s
Float Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth : 24.00GB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Windows Experience Index
Current Chipset/Memory : 5.9
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Int Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth
Assignment : 23.68GB/s
Scaling : 23.73GB/s
Addition : 24.18GB/s
Triad : 24.28GB/s
Data Item Size : 16bytes
Buffering Used : Yes
Offset Displacement Used : Yes

Float Buff'd iSSE2 Memory Bandwidth
Assignment : 23.72GB/s
Scaling : 23.74GB/s
Addition : 24.20GB/s
Triad : 24.32GB/s
Data Item Size : 16bytes
Buffering Used : Yes
Offset Displacement Used : Yes

Quote :

Benchmark Results
Memory (Random Access) Latency : 65ns
Speed Factor : 51.10
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Cache Information
Internal Data Cache : 4clocks
L2 On-board Cache : 10clocks
L3 On-board Cache : 47clocks
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Windows Experience Index
Current Chipset/Memory : 5.9
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.

Detailed Benchmark Results
1kB Range : 4clocks / 1ns
4kB Range : 4clocks / 1ns
16kB Range : 4clocks / 1ns
64kB Range : 10clocks / 3ns
256kB Range : 11clocks / 3ns
1MB Range : 44clocks / 14ns
4MB Range : 51clocks / 16ns
16MB Range : 197clocks / 62ns
64MB Range : 209clocks / 65ns

Message edited by Wr on 12-15-2008 at 09:35:19 PM

Reply to Wr

pretty sure stock isn't 3.34 ghz... thats retarded

I believe its 3.2... so saying a program is faulty for being right is well...

Silly

Reply to thogrom

roadrunner197069 wrote :

My system is far more then a 15% gain over yours pal.

I'm pretty sure he meant in performance he can actually see and use. You need to get over yourself, you have an i7 build good for you, but that does not mean you can or should demean other people's systems because you can run synthetic benchmarks a lot better than them and get slightly better performance after spending a bare minimum of $900. He is also right in that he put his money into better causes (I'm not saying I don't spend too much on computers, I bet I still have paid more on my system than you and I have not upgraded to i7!), that is his choice, you made yours and that is all there is to it.

Reply to The_Blood_Raven

roadrunner197069 wrote :

If you knew how to read, you would see I said it would be a good upgrade choice, but not the best choice for a new build from scratch.

If/when they out do i7 I will be one of the first to buy it.

I will always choose the best of the best no matter what brand.

Your right, I did miss that post. However, the point remains that i7 is for those who want to/ can spend the money, but most can't and wont. Phenom X4 II will be a great upgrade for those with AM2+ boards, especially if thy have an SB750 motherboard. It was unfair to single you out, but this phenom X4 II vs i7 comparison needs to stop because it makes absolutely no sense. This will hopefully help AMD get back on track, but I doubt it. Again, it seems to me that the performance just is not what it needs to be according to this, but I still hope it helps AMD.

Reply to The_Blood_Raven

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - AMD Phenom II 940 "Xtremely" Benchmarked

Please mind

Become a fan

AMD Phenom II 940 "Xtremely" Benchmarked

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - AMD Phenom II 940 "Xtremely" Benchmarked

Please mind