Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom II 940 - Core 2 Quad Q9550

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 3, 2009 4:28:33 PM

I'm a few weeks away from buying a new computer and I've already chosen most of my computer parts. The only part I am not too sure about is the CPU. At the moment my future computer consists of a p5q mainboard and a Q9550 processor. Videocard will be bought a little later on.

At first I wanted to build a computer that was just capable of playing full HD movies and playing some games but I decided to build a future proof computer. This means that the CPU must be a quad core because I think that in the future more cores will come in handy.

I chose for the Q9550 because it "felt" like a high end quad core (i7 isn't making much sense to me right now.) and also performs like one. I started fishing trough reviews to see what the Q9550 performs like and I accidently found a review that compared the 9550 with a phenom II 940.

I thought, whatever, the 940 wont perform even close to the 9550 untill I noticed that it did. Next I checked the price at my local shop and at an online retailer not too far away.

Online:

940: 229 euro's
9550: 279 euro's

Local:

940: 265 euro's
9550: 323 euro's -> noticed the price rose, in times of competition? (was 310 euro's yesterday, I'm sure.)

The question I have is,

Should I go with the 940 or the 9550. Since I'm not planning on starting a flame war or intel/AMD fan boys I just want benchmark based answers.

Believe me I have been searching for benchmarks for hours and haven't found more then 2 so I'd like some more.


In the ones I have seen the 940 performs equal, a little less, a little better in games. Where the 940 will get 100 fps in UT3 the 9550 will get 98 or 102 for example. This difference, since it is spread over the type of benchmarks, isn't enough for me to be able to make up my mind, therefore I realy need some opinions.



So, 940 or 9550 for gaming and converting movies?

Your input please.
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2009 5:46:01 PM

tomstar said:
I'm a few weeks away from buying a new computer and I've already chosen most of my computer parts. The only part I am not too sure about is the CPU. At the moment my future computer consists of a p5q mainboard and a Q9550 processor. Videocard will be bought a little later on.

At first I wanted to build a computer that was just capable of playing full HD movies and playing some games but I decided to build a future proof computer. This means that the CPU must be a quad core because I think that in the future more cores will come in handy.

I chose for the Q9550 because it "felt" like a high end quad core (i7 isn't making much sense to me right now.) and also performs like one. I started fishing trough reviews to see what the Q9550 performs like and I accidently found a review that compared the 9550 with a phenom II 940.

I thought, whatever, the 940 wont perform even close to the 9550 untill I noticed that it did. Next I checked the price at my local shop and at an online retailer not too far away.

Online:

940: 229 euro's
9550: 279 euro's

Local:

940: 265 euro's
9550: 323 euro's -> noticed the price rose, in times of competition? (was 310 euro's yesterday, I'm sure.)

The question I have is,

Should I go with the 940 or the 9550. Since I'm not planning on starting a flame war or intel/AMD fan boys I just want benchmark based answers.

Believe me I have been searching for benchmarks for hours and haven't found more then 2 so I'd like some more.


In the ones I have seen the 940 performs equal, a little less, a little better in games. Where the 940 will get 100 fps in UT3 the 9550 will get 98 or 102 for example. This difference, since it is spread over the type of benchmarks, isn't enough for me to be able to make up my mind, therefore I realy need some opinions.



So, 940 or 9550 for gaming and converting movies?

Your input please.


Personally I would go with a I core 7 920 and future proof yourself for a bit longer..

DDR3 will certainly future proof your more than ddr2 as it is still quite new.. and the socket has only really just been released..

Pay the extra euros and you will not regret it.
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2009 6:18:12 PM

I would go with which ever one you can build a system with that comes out cheaper. As stated about the upgrade path. There isnt going to be hardly any new cpus for socket 775(minus low power models) The new AM3 cpus are supposed to run on socket AM2 boards.
Related resources
February 3, 2009 6:37:59 PM

tomstar said:
I'm a few weeks away from buying a new computer and I've already chosen most of my computer parts. The only part I am not too sure about is the CPU. At the moment my future computer consists of a p5q mainboard and a Q9550 processor. Videocard will be bought a little later on.

At first I wanted to build a computer that was just capable of playing full HD movies and playing some games but I decided to build a future proof computer. This means that the CPU must be a quad core because I think that in the future more cores will come in handy.

I chose for the Q9550 because it "felt" like a high end quad core (i7 isn't making much sense to me right now.) and also performs like one. I started fishing trough reviews to see what the Q9550 performs like and I accidently found a review that compared the 9550 with a phenom II 940.

I thought, whatever, the 940 wont perform even close to the 9550 untill I noticed that it did. Next I checked the price at my local shop and at an online retailer not too far away.

Online:

940: 229 euro's
9550: 279 euro's

Local:

940: 265 euro's
9550: 323 euro's -> noticed the price rose, in times of competition? (was 310 euro's yesterday, I'm sure.)

The question I have is,

Should I go with the 940 or the 9550. Since I'm not planning on starting a flame war or intel/AMD fan boys I just want benchmark based answers.

Believe me I have been searching for benchmarks for hours and haven't found more then 2 so I'd like some more.


In the ones I have seen the 940 performs equal, a little less, a little better in games. Where the 940 will get 100 fps in UT3 the 9550 will get 98 or 102 for example. This difference, since it is spread over the type of benchmarks, isn't enough for me to be able to make up my mind, therefore I realy need some opinions.



So, 940 or 9550 for gaming and converting movies?

Your input please.




I would choose a system that offered a better deal with regards to power/cost ratio.

Ci7 965EE/3.2GHz LGA1366 6.4 GT/s $1079.99
X4 940 / 3.00GHz Socket AM2+ 1800MHz (3600 MT/s) $239.99
-------------
Savings: $840.00

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/Category/catego...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwcKyrHHQac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EJKifq6JM

$840 is a lot of money that can be used for ................two 4870 x2's?
February 3, 2009 6:39:22 PM

The problem is that the i7 platform needs a very expensive mainboard. And since I do not need an X58 but rather a P58 which isn't going to come out anytime soon, I don't want to pay over 150 euro's for an i7 platform mainboard.

The processor itself is ok but everything around it isn't. I'll try to build an i7 system under 700 euro's and if I manage to that I will give it another thaught, however, shouldn't AM2+ give upgrade possibilities too?

Or will there be AM3 only CPU's around next year?
February 3, 2009 6:40:18 PM

Since I can't edit:

i7 wasn't all that great in gaming benchmarks.
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2009 6:43:17 PM

No matter what you do, ingnore anything and everything that troll enigma067 says.
February 3, 2009 6:51:29 PM

He makes a strange comparison... i7 965EE vs P2?

Anyway, A phenom 2 940 system will cost me about 600 euro's where the i7 platform will cost me 720, chose a smaller hard drive, no DVD writer etc. can buy that stuff later on.

Question is, is the i7 platform worth the extra 120 euro's? Or should I get a P2 platform and get a better videocard instantly?

At the moment I am solely looking at the CPU. I hate spending cash but when I spend it, I want it to be spend good. So in other words, If i need to spend something I don't mind paying extra for future proofness.

:p 

I take it that are no major bugs in the i7 or anything.
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2009 7:02:59 PM

The i7 is an excellent platform to be sure, but if you are on a tight budget, there is a good case to be made for either the Phenom II or the Q9000 series CPUs. I have an i7 and love it - I would highly recommend it to anyone, and that's probably what I would chose in your situation though.
a b à CPUs
February 3, 2009 7:31:31 PM


Me personally I would either ask granny or save a bit more..

1366 is the future socket and its here now.
February 3, 2009 7:31:46 PM

tomstar said:
He makes a strange comparison... i7 965EE vs P2?


Ignore him, he's nothing but a troll. His post didn't even have anything to do with your question. He posts the same stupid AMD marketing videos every time.

tomstar said:
Anyway, A phenom 2 940 system will cost me about 600 euro's where the i7 platform will cost me 720, chose a smaller hard drive, no DVD writer etc. can buy that stuff later on.

Question is, is the i7 platform worth the extra 120 euro's? Or should I get a P2 platform and get a better videocard instantly?

At the moment I am solely looking at the CPU. I hate spending cash but when I spend it, I want it to be spend good. So in other words, If i need to spend something I don't mind paying extra for future proofness.

:p 

I take it that are no major bugs in the i7 or anything.


I'd probably pay the extra for the i7, but I really don't think you'd be disappointed with the PII 940 either. It keeps up fairly well with the Q9550 and costs 50 euro less for you. If you do decide to go with the Phenom II make sure you get a board that is compatable with the AM3 processors coming out in the next couple months.
February 3, 2009 8:30:47 PM

hmmm..... Well I would say if you are on a tight buget go with the AMD system as it is cheaper and you can Use that extra $$$ to go toward somthing else. But if you want the better of the two at the moment would be the Q9550 or Q9650.
February 3, 2009 9:15:36 PM

wait for AM3 Phenom. If Yoy want to buy now then Q9550 if You are going to overclock and Phenom if not.
February 3, 2009 11:31:08 PM

I think either way you go you will be happy, I have the Phenom II 940 be, on a Asus 79-T mother board, and 4870 setup in one of my builds. I love it and it does everything I want it to, no issues. I just added two more GB of 1066 ram to my 4gb I already had and it is all running at 1066, which the mother board says it will default to 800mhz instead of the 1066mhz rating with more then 2 dim sticks in. So that is a good thing. My Phenon II is on water, and at 3.6 stable 24/7 with a multi of 18 and 1.35 volts. One of the best things about the Phenom II is that cool and Quiet now works perfect. Even with my over clock of 3.6ghz it will Idle down my processor to 800mhz and only .99 volts on all cores, and when you need the extra power, it jumps right back up 3.6ghz, no lag, no issues at all, even playing games. Most of the time I can multi task, surf the web and watch or burn a movie and it only use's what it needs, to do the task I am running. I really like that it save's power when its not needed.

If I had a choice between the Q9550 I would pic the Phenom II 940 which I did with the build I have now. Both are very good processors and either way I think you will not be dissapointed.

If you have the money for I7 I would go with it, I do not have this build yet, but I did run to Micro center in Chicago IL, and picked up the I7 920 for $229 dollars last week. I will be putting it all together soon, just not sure what mother board I m going with yet. Stuck between Asus PT6 and another board. I am sure that the I7 build will be a great computer.

Do research and pic which system you think will suit you best, price and performance wise. Good luck with your build
February 4, 2009 10:07:29 AM

Phenom II build:

Phenom II 940 3.0 GHz (not going to overclock) 229 euro's
GigaByte MA790X-DS4 (not sure if it is compatible with AM3.) 109 euro's
4GB DDRII Ram (OCZ fan.) 50 euro's
520 Watt powersupply (OCZ fan :)  69 euro's
Antec threehundred 50 euro's
rest doesn't realy matter.


i7 build:
Ci7 920 (279 euro's)
P6T (229 euro's)
same case
same power supply
2GB of ram, (one stick) -> upgrade a few weeks later to 4GB or 6GB


Q9550 build:

asus p5q (106 euro's)
Q9550 (279 euro's)
4GB ram (50 euro's)

So i think the prices should be somewhere near:

720 euro's for the i7 build
600 euro's for the phenom 940 biuld
650 for the Q9550 build.

As you can see prices are pretty close and I don't know which one get's the upper hand. i7 is good for multitasking and stuff, I will be doing alot of converting avi's to DVD's and stuff but i'll be gaming as well.

Gaming the Q9550 and phenom 940 perform, let's say, equal.
I'm no AMD fan and no Intel fan so... I can say they perform equal :p  (atleast from the benches I have seen.)

Plus, the 940 will be the cheapest build.

The i7 however, costs over 700 euro's and that's without a videocard. So I think I'll be dropping the Q9550 chose as it is more expensive, and performing equal to 940.

Therefore the choise is between the i7 nd the phenom.

What I like about the i7:

It is the ost future proof system of all, but expensive. With a videocard this build will cost me close to 920 euro's. If I go for the i7 i'll be expecting atleast 5 years from it. I might upgrade the videocard and stuff in the meantime but i'm only looking at th eprocessor now.

What I like about the 940 PII:

It is cheap, 600 euro's plus a videocard, 4850/70 that would be 800 euro's for a very good gamin set-up.

How ever, I dislike the fact that AMD is in the middle of an upgrade with their AM3. So I don't want to have an outdated system within the next few months.

I'm not sure what AMD is planning to do, release AM3 only processors? I don't know but if they would do so I might go for the i7 because I know the 1399 socket or whatever it was, will last.


So the price difference is about 150 euro's and the phenom will give me more for the money. 600 euro phenom build will give me a bigger hard drive, more ram, where the i7 build had a lesser hard drive, and ''only'' 2GB of ram.


Does anybody know if AMD is going to come with a 45nm AM3 processor that runs faster then 2.8 GHz? within 2 months?
February 4, 2009 11:12:22 AM

True, true, true and true.

But, will i5 perform better then i7? If i7 is aimed at the niche market and i5 at the mainstream public then i'd find it weird if the i5 would outperform i7 unless intel comes with newer i7 CPU's ofcourse.

775 is, indeed, a dead end. I also think i7 is overpriced but it is also very future proof. So maybe, if I want a future proof computer I should go with Phenom II on an AM3 mainboard?

There should be AM3 boards available in belgium after 9/02 so that's... 5 days from now.

AM3 and phenom 940 the way to go?
February 4, 2009 11:21:12 AM

haha lol, same threat that i started some weeks ago!!

i'm also from belgium, and 10 feb is my birthday (remember it all!!)

so am3 9feb? that's good news for me!! ahah, so it's a real good reason to wait!!

February 4, 2009 11:26:38 AM

@tomstar

If I were you I'd go for PII.

I have said this over and over... as already tested there is only a negligible performance different between DDR2 (AM2+ board) vs DDR3 (AM3 board), so why spent the extra $$$ for DDR3 when a good AM2+ board can also support AM3 CPU (for your future upgrade say in a year or two).

PII 940 is here right now, cheapest compare to others, the platform is future proof (support AM3 cpus) and it is fast. Did I mention how cold it is running? Some one said running his PII 940 @ 3.6 on water with default voltage. I run mine at 3.5ghz stable on stock cooling & voltage... guess what, the heatsink isn't even warm. Having said that, I have decided not to buy a proper cooler - less money to spent. I'm still using my old nvidia 7800gt... and it still run game pretty fast (Need for speed undercover - all at high setting@1680x1050), same to COD4.

Bleh, was gonna link you to Anandtech review few days ago re comparison of the 3 cpu you mentioned above - noticed the review has gone? :( 
PII 940 run much smoother with generally higher minimum fps.

Anyway, it is your money... whichever you choose, you will be happy with the performance.
February 4, 2009 3:04:19 PM

ken,

if i read your comment, i get the water in my mouth for buying right now!!
February 4, 2009 4:33:09 PM

there's no contest go for the PII, it has much better tech than the core2 quad, but i7 is better again but also expensive
February 4, 2009 5:22:17 PM

Tomstar,

I am also a fan of ocz, I have the memory fan cooler, I have 4 gb of there ddr2 800mhz ram in my X 2 6400+be build, I have the 2 gb total of there reaper 1066 (2x1) kit, and it is pair up with my G.skill 4gb kit of 1066. All timings are the same with the G.skill and ocz 1066, only difference is max bandwith, the G.skill show up as 6.4 max bandwith and the ocz 1066 show up as 4.8 i think. I have had no issues with this ram working together for 6gb total at 1066.

I believe from what I heard they will be releasing the new AM3 phenom II's in acouple months. I had the same choice, what to upgrade my 9850be that I had at 3.1Ghz or upgrade with the 940 or wait till the 945 came out that will support DDR3 ram. I really don't think there will be a hugh increase in performance with the DDR3, but there might be. I looked at it like this, I already had my Jetway HA04 extreme mother board lying around, So if I bought the P II 940 i now have two quad builds, Spider and dragon. Dragon is much better, but the 9850be spider is also a good gaming rig.

I figured the I7 920 at micro center couldn't be beat for $220 bucks, so I am waiting a little bit before I make the jump to get the mother board and the DDR3 ram, maybe prices will drop within the next month.

I have never used ocz power source's so not sure on the quality on them. I have Two Rosewills, the RX-750 and the Rx-950 and have never had any problems with either and I am going on a year. I also have Two PC power cooling, 610watt and a 750watt and they are some of the best PSU. I only got the Rosewills because they were on a combo deal with my 6400BE and my 9850be and they were on Johny gurus site and were tested and given there approval for a clean stable power supply. If you can afford the Pc cooling brand I would go with a 610 watt atleast for your build. But other then that, I would say you could go with the Phenom II and a AM3 mother board right now, not wait for the Phenom II that supports ddr3 and it will do everything you want it to, and you will be very happy with it.
February 4, 2009 7:04:10 PM

My internet shop doesn't have AM3 boards available or even listed at the moment, a bit odd. Anyway, correct me if i'm wrong.

I should go with an AM3 board because I would be able to upgrade my processor later on.
If I go with an AM2+ board I would only be able to use AM2+ processors and Phenom II but not newer phenom II processors that might come later on but I can use the 940 on an AM3 board.

Pro: I can upgrade proc.
Con: I have to use DDR III, let's face it, it's not that expensive...

I wonder why there isn't a 3.0 GHz quad core for the AM3 socket at the moment...
February 4, 2009 7:24:02 PM

If your into games then go for the AMD because the Phenom II is smoother in games than any of the intels and that's more important than a few fps in some benchmark. If you do 3D animation for a living then go for the i7 because it's quicker at rendering.
February 4, 2009 7:32:36 PM

Think I made my choice. I'm going with phenom. I'm just not too shure about, wether I should wait for a new AM3 CPU or not. Currently there is only 1 Quad core for AM3 which is running at 2.6 GHz which I don't find fast enough since I'm not into overclocking.

I figured it would be best to go with an AM3 board since I'm looking for a future proof system. SO, 940 or wait for new processors?
February 4, 2009 7:47:40 PM

Malcolmk said:
If your into games then go for the AMD because the Phenom II is smoother in games than any of the intels and that's more important than a few fps in some benchmark. If you do 3D animation for a living then go for the i7 because it's quicker at rendering.


The "feels smoother" thing sounds nice but there's not really any way to actually test it. Anandtech did mention in their latest review they had smoother gameplay in 2 of 7 games using the PII 940 (versus the Q9550) and that the others were about equal. They also mentioned that the i7 was the best performer. You're making generalizations that are untrue.


@OP - You can get AM2+ boards that will be compatible with the new AM3 CPU's. I believe most of the manufacturers have a list on their web sites. That way you can keep the board, grab a PII 940 now, and upgrade the CPU down the road if you wish.
February 5, 2009 4:32:58 AM

Could you give a link to that review?

If I got it right, AM3 mainboards are just AM2+ boards socketwise that support DDR3 which makes it practicly useless to go with AM3 if you don't want to pay for DDR3 since every new processor that will be introduced will fit into an AM2+ board as well as into an AM3 board.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2009 5:21:47 AM

Malcolmk said:
If your into games then go for the AMD because the Phenom II is smoother in games than any of the intels and that's more important than a few fps in some benchmark. If you do 3D animation for a living then go for the i7 because it's quicker at rendering.


Feels smoother? That's absolute garbage - you can measure minimum frame rates, and the Intels are just as good if not better than AMD in this category (especially i7).
February 5, 2009 10:39:34 AM

@tomstar

PII 940 is running at 3ghz.

Btw, you don't need to be a scientist to overclock. If you can get into bios... all you need to do is just to increase the multiplier, in my case i selected multiplier to 17.5 --> save ---> boom!! 3.5ghz on stock cooler & stock voltage...and it isn't even warm to make me want a better cooler.
February 5, 2009 1:47:02 PM

tomstar said:
Could you give a link to that review?


Here's Anandtech's initial Phenom review http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3492

Here's the crossfire one (which also includes single card performance) comparing the i7 920, PII 940, and Q9550: http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3506


tomstar said:
If I got it right, AM3 mainboards are just AM2+ boards socketwise that support DDR3 which makes it practicly useless to go with AM3 if you don't want to pay for DDR3 since every new processor that will be introduced will fit into an AM2+ board as well as into an AM3 board.


The AM3 boards coming out will have a new chipset so they will probably have other features and enhancements but the DDR3 support is one of the major changes. Just make that if you get an AM2+ board that the manufacturer will support AM3 processors on that board (since they may need a BIOS update.)

February 5, 2009 2:01:30 PM

Yeah I know the PII 940 is running at 3.0GHz. But I ment to ask if there were any new AM3 processors running higher then 3.0GHz or at 3.0GHz. But I forgot that the PII 940 is actually an AM3 proc. that is capable of running in an AM2+ board.

PII 940 in AM3 socket = DDRIII support?
February 5, 2009 2:10:34 PM

We have no idea atm what will come with AM3. Improvements and stock clocks at higher speeds is all we can hope for. You never know untill it hits the shelf and the real world gets a hand on one.
February 5, 2009 2:11:31 PM

The Anandtech review dissapoints me a bit. The Q9550 is clearly the better processor. Even though it's 50 euro's more then the 940 I do get more power then the 940.

Should never have read that review lol, back at 0...

What's wrong with all these reviews, sometimes the 940 is equal to the 9550 and in another review the 9550 is clearly higher up.

Maybe it's because of the amount of other processors bewteen the 940 and 9550 that makes the difference looksbig. Not sure, I'm going to review hunt some more.
February 5, 2009 2:22:33 PM

The PII 940 will not work in an AM3 socket. The PII 920 and PII 940 were designed to work only in AM2+ boards (and they also happen to work in certain AM2 boards).

The 2nd review I linked does show that the PII 940 and Q9550 are pretty close in gaming, both with and without crossfire if that's your major interest.
February 5, 2009 2:35:27 PM

Yeah, but the first review does show the that the 9550 is quite up ahead or am I mistaking?

I just recalculated and the i7 system without a graphics card will be 757 euro's where the Phenom II system will cost 588 euro's.

I did pick an expensive motherboard but only 2GB's of ram though. I could cave up on the mother board and go the gigabyte one with "only" 3 PCI-e 16 slots which would make the i7 system 30 euro's cheaper, but that's still 727 euro's for an i7 system.


940 system 574 euro's
i7 - too expensive (750)
Q9550 - 613 euro's.

Q9550 worth the extra 40 euro's? And is it even a good choice as the 755 is as good as dead.

I feel like I'm asking myself the same stupid question over and over again...
I should just go phenom II dammit.

Then I gues there is one dilemma that remains: AM3 or AM2+, AM3 means: Wait for a newer processor and I have no id when they will come with 3GHz quadcores for AM3.
February 5, 2009 6:44:28 PM

cjl said:
Feels smoother? That's absolute garbage - you can measure minimum frame rates, and the Intels are just as good if not better than AMD in this category (especially i7).



I'm not talking about framerate, I'm talking about the transition between frames and how easy it is on your eyes. If your running a high res screen you will notice the AMD Phenom is a more pleasant gaming experience. Same thing can be said between Nvidia and ATI. The most important thing is what it's like in actual gameplay and not how it scores in some benchmark.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2009 6:48:56 PM

That is still garbage - the "transition between frames" is entirely dependent on the monitor, as well as the ease on the eyes. Video card has something to do with it as well. Almost none of it is the CPU.
February 5, 2009 7:41:41 PM

Try it for yourself. That's why I don't use my Intel system for games anymore. As for the cpu having nothing to do with playability do I need to remind you the AMD is a monolithic design with an intergrated memory controller and the 775 quads are two dual cores glued together with an external memory controller that cost Intel $5 to make.

Intel has come a long way with the i7 design but it is still expensive and runs hot. The Phenom 940 is great value, runs cool, has an unlocked multiplyer and uses DDR2 ram which means you can run 8gig of ram without breaking the budget.

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3506&p=10
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2009 7:52:02 PM

tomstar said:
The Anandtech review dissapoints me a bit. The Q9550 is clearly the better processor. Even though it's 50 euro's more then the 940 I do get more power then the 940.

Should never have read that review lol, back at 0...

What's wrong with all these reviews, sometimes the 940 is equal to the 9550 and in another review the 9550 is clearly higher up.

Maybe it's because of the amount of other processors bewteen the 940 and 9550 that makes the difference looksbig. Not sure, I'm going to review hunt some more.


You should compare the actual review results and not pay too much attention to their conclusions, IMHO - Toms, Anands, etc. are being pretty careful nowadays to cast AMD in a good light due to all the fanbois flaming (mainly from AMDzone trolls). Take a look at THIS review, or THIS review for instance.

As for waiting on AM3, wait a few more months for the D0 stepping of i7 to appear: Intel's upcoming Core i7 975 EE benchmarked

Quote:
Although this is hardly a huge step up from the current 965XE part which is clocked at 3.2GHz, the new 975XE seems to overclock much better. Using a Gigabyte EX58-Extreme motherboard, Fugger managed to push the 975XE D0 engineering sample at 5259MHz without any problems and with the help of a pair of Radeon HD 4870 X2 graphics cards, him and his partner Mikeguava managed to break 47,000 in 3DMark 05 which is a new world record.


I'm sure the D0 stepping will apply to all the i7's and not just the extreme editions...
February 5, 2009 8:07:18 PM

Im suprised only one person in this thread has commented on the resident idiot/troll comparing the i7 965 extreme and the P2 940 in prices for a reason to buy the Phenom.

Anyways, go with the cheaper build.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2009 8:08:04 PM

Quote:
775 quads are two dual cores glued together


OP: This "double cheeseburger" argument, plus the undocumented and unverifiable "smoothiness" statements - "It just feels smoother!" - from AMD fans seem to crop up fairly frequently :) . The closest thing I've seen in any review lately is the one Anandtech did recently, which you've already seen, dealing with minimum frames per second. As cjl pointed out, that is the correct parameter. Too few FPS and the game gets choppy.

It's your money, so probably the best thing for you to do is try and see a P2, i7 920 and Q9550 system up close, if you know anybody with those systems. Certainly I wouldn't pay attention to posters who post such nonsense as the quote above...
February 5, 2009 8:11:08 PM

Another good point ^^^

The two duals argument is the biggest pile of BS you can find. The people that bring this up as a negative are the same people who thought the original Phenoms "native quad" was oh so great.
a b à CPUs
February 5, 2009 8:13:12 PM

spathotan said:
Im suprised only one person in this thread has commented on the resident idiot/troll comparing the i7 965 extreme and the P2 940 in prices for a reason to buy the Phenom.

Anyways, go with the cheaper build.


That's because the rest of us have lives and get tired of responding to every one of enigma's ignorant posts :) 

a b à CPUs
February 5, 2009 10:46:45 PM

Malcolmk said:
Try it for yourself. That's why I don't use my Intel system for games anymore. As for the cpu having nothing to do with playability do I need to remind you the AMD is a monolithic design with an intergrated memory controller and the 775 quads are two dual cores glued together with an external memory controller that cost Intel $5 to make.

Intel has come a long way with the i7 design but it is still expensive and runs hot. The Phenom 940 is great value, runs cool, has an unlocked multiplyer and uses DDR2 ram which means you can run 8gig of ram without breaking the budget.

http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3506&p=10


I've seen and (for a short period) used an older gen phenom system. I was less than impressed. The Q6600 system that I also tried at the same time was noticeably smoother, and image quality was the same.

Now, both were a lot slower than my current i7, which is to be expected. As for breaking the budget? DDR3 has fallen like a rock in pricing, and you can now get 6GB of DDR3 1333 for less than $150.

If you want to keep claiming this "smoothness" thing, provide proof. Take video. Measure minimum framerates. I don't care how you do it, but provide some kind of actual backing to your claims if you want anyone to even remotely take you seriously.
February 5, 2009 11:20:43 PM

Well the AMD is playable at a higher resolution than my intel setup and it's easier on my eyes. I've tried four different 775 motherboards and the AMD is still better in gameplay. I use to be an Intel fanboy but after trying the Phenom quad I wish I had tried them a lot earlier. In Australia DDR3 ram is still three or four times the price of ddr2 so I'll be sticking with DDR2 for a lot longer yet. Anyway I am not wasting anymore of my time on debating the same thing over and over again. Just get whatever setup is within your budget.
February 5, 2009 11:36:24 PM

Why would you buy a 940 if you're not overclocking? The 920 is nearly as fast, and $40 cheeper
February 6, 2009 6:37:33 AM

I just recently put together a new build 1 1/2 weeks ago, consisting of PII 940 - Asus M3A79 T-Deluxe and I was also doubting towards the end about the maybe still getting the Q9550 instead.

The reason for this were the reviews I read, in the end they all seemed very biased towards the Phenom II 940 and conclusions always degraded the CPU. I eventually decided to stick with the 940 built especially since the obvious price difference and back then I read that intel is moving away from socket 775 (too lazy to search for a link), thus I'm not even taking the risk that I won't be able to upgrade the CPU in a year or two.

If you are going to get a phenom II 940 on a AM2+ (I would advise 790FX and SB750, you don't need an onboard graphics card w/the 790GX) board then you should have an older ahtlon cpu available to update the bios. I ran into this problem and was luckily able to borrow a friends cpu in order to update the BIOS of my Asus board (which you can easily upgrade through a USB stick formatted w/FAT).

My experience with the phenom is very good, I didn't run any benchmarks but I haven't run into any problems yet either.

Regarding crossfire, if your are going to use 2x, 3x or 4x you can only benefit from 4x if your using single slot GPU's, for example on my asus (4x xfire) can only use 3x since there is not enough space to place 4 HD4870's. So you could only use if i'm not mistaken 4x HD4850. But you should check the layout from the board to make sure you can actually make use of mentioned crossfire. Since manufacturers tend to overrate their products.

- Shugs

PS: I paid €222 for the 940 ~2 weeks ago online.
February 6, 2009 7:10:01 AM

If he goes to water cooling, which I know it will be a high price, but just saying that for a grand total of 4x4870's around $800 bucks, and another $480 dollars to Danger den for the 4870 water blocks, and about another $250 bucks for a custom water system he could go 4x4870's. Water blocks make them single slot cards.

I am just waiting for Enigma to jump back in and say "I told you so guys, with that extra $1000 dollars look what he can get!" LOL
February 6, 2009 10:15:54 AM

shugs said:
I just recently put together a new build 1 1/2 weeks ago, consisting of PII 940 - Asus M3A79 T-Deluxe and I was also doubting towards the end about the maybe still getting the Q9550 instead.

The reason for this were the reviews I read, in the end they all seemed very biased towards the Phenom II 940 and conclusions always degraded the CPU. I eventually decided to stick with the 940 built especially since the obvious price difference and back then I read that intel is moving away from socket 775 (too lazy to search for a link), thus I'm not even taking the risk that I won't be able to upgrade the CPU in a year or two.

If you are going to get a phenom II 940 on a AM2+ (I would advise 790FX and SB750, you don't need an onboard graphics card w/the 790GX) board then you should have an older ahtlon cpu available to update the bios. I ran into this problem and was luckily able to borrow a friends cpu in order to update the BIOS of my Asus board (which you can easily upgrade through a USB stick formatted w/FAT).

My experience with the phenom is very good, I didn't run any benchmarks but I haven't run into any problems yet either.

Regarding crossfire, if your are going to use 2x, 3x or 4x you can only benefit from 4x if your using single slot GPU's, for example on my asus (4x xfire) can only use 3x since there is not enough space to place 4 HD4870's. So you could only use if i'm not mistaken 4x HD4850. But you should check the layout from the board to make sure you can actually make use of mentioned crossfire. Since manufacturers tend to overrate their products.

- Shugs

PS: I paid €222 for the 940 ~2 weeks ago online.



In the past few months I have learnt a lot about what to believe with reviews on these web sites and that includes Toms hardware. You only have to look at some of there test results in the overclocked AMD 940 vs i7 920 review. For one thing most people are able to run there Phenom 940 at 3.5 to 3.6 with the stock cooler and without touching the voltage. It is possible they got a bad sample so that's not too obvious. Then you look at the COD5 scores and they claim the 940 at 3.6gig bottlenecks at 70fps with a 4870x2. My budget 2.2gig Phenom with an 8800gt is averaging 45fps with %50 cpu usage. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see the test results are complete bull.

Obviously intel is looking after anyone that writes a favorable article for them. Maybe some free samples or advertising on there site to sweeten the deal. Before I get into too much trouble and get kicked off this site there are a lot of other sites that do it too. Overclockers Club is a great one for faking results in memory reviews. Unfortunately I purchased some memory based on one of there reviews. Now getting back back to AMD and Intel it really annoys me that I held off buying a Phenom for so long because of these tainted articles. The truth is the majority of people that purchase an AMD Phenom are very happy with them and that is the only thing that really matters.
February 6, 2009 12:18:54 PM

Malcolmk said:
In the past few months I have learnt a lot about what to believe with reviews on these web sites and that includes Toms hardware. You only have to look at some of there test results in the overclocked AMD 940 vs i7 920 review. For one thing most people are able to run there Phenom 940 at 3.5 to 3.6 with the stock cooler and without touching the voltage.


I can't agree more + in the reviews they mostly only mention DDR3 RAM (used for the intel build) in the specs once. In the conclusion the impact of DDR3 is never considered / accounted for. Which in my honest opinion most definately has an influence on performance, on top of that the considerable price difference...For me personally, the price/performance ratio of the phenom 2 is a good, since the additional price on intel does not justify the minimal performance increase (You probably won't even notice those couple %) and socket 775 probably won't last very long anymore either. So if I were you I would only look at 1366 or AM3 boards to be future proof.

I can personally can only advise the phenom II, if I were you I would wait a little bit longer since they should be coming out with AM3 now and if i'm not mistaken soon afterwards the 960 (march i think). So if you dont' want to overlock, wait a little bit. I waited 1 month til the 940 came out instead of buying the 9950BE and it was worth it.
!