Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Phenom II 955 Benchmarks

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Related resources
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2009 3:51:05 PM

Interesting. It's too bad that there isn't also something like a Q9550 in there to compare it to.
April 13, 2009 4:39:14 PM

^ No kidding.

Interesting that it has the highest game performance rating. I take it they were running a single-card rig? I wonder how badly it was bottlenecked.

Now I want so OC benchmarks and more comparisons, like with highly overclocked e8x00s and q9XX0s.
April 13, 2009 5:16:39 PM

I'd love to see how far this can easily be overclocked. The benchmarks above, I am taking with a grain of salt, although, I can't see why these wouldn't be dead on, they look fairly logical with other benchmarks - for the most part.

I guess next Monday (20th), we will see 20+ benchmarks on just about every single tech site on the web.

April 13, 2009 5:17:15 PM

cjl said:
Interesting. It's too bad that there isn't also something like a Q9550 in there to compare it to.



Agreed, or at least the Q9650.
a b à CPUs
April 13, 2009 5:48:48 PM

weird... anyone else notice how the gaming benchmarks seem to go in weird directions? i7 gets a lot lower min fps and both are bottlenecked by the card... ?
April 13, 2009 6:52:29 PM

the amount of watts better be the whole build.
April 14, 2009 2:15:02 AM

@PsychoSaysDie
AMD's HyperTransport that is over 6 years now is ftw
it even beats Intels Brandnew QPI that is only less than half year old..

btw, AMD can easly beat intel i7 if they have had faster transition of manufacuring process

intel has been 1 year ahead of amd when it comes to manufacuring process
65nm > 45nm

it shows that if amd have had 45nm last year, amd would been on top of intel highest end ;) 

Phenom II is basicly a phenom with some tweaks, more cache and higher clocks
it shows that AMD CAN make great CPUs, even when intel has its cash up big OEMs asses ;P
April 14, 2009 2:26:53 AM

The numbers look good, but this X4 955 should have been out a long time ago. AMD pushing AM3 before their damn flagship chip for the platform even launched was...stupid. Its like a half-hearted purchase for a half-hearted platform.
a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 14, 2009 5:01:40 AM

smithereen said:
^ No kidding.

Interesting that it has the highest game performance rating. I take it they were running a single-card rig? I wonder how badly it was bottlenecked.

Now I want so OC benchmarks and more comparisons, like with highly overclocked e8x00s and q9XX0s.


If it was a single card setup then every CPU in that test was bottlenecked a lot. Well at least we know the Core i7 is. Or did they do a test with Phenom II?

Anywho, the game performance is only for those who want to see their power bill be lower. Which is some. I really don't care. My bill is normally high due to heating costs in the winter and cooling in the summer.

Not a bad CPU but they do need to run a OCing test on it and see how far it goes compared to the X4 940 and the new Core i7 920 D0 stepping.
a c 122 à CPUs
a b À AMD
April 14, 2009 5:10:46 AM

wiak said:
@PsychoSaysDie
AMD's HyperTransport that is over 6 years now is ftw
it even beats Intels Brandnew QPI that is only less than half year old..

btw, AMD can easly beat intel i7 if they have had faster transition of manufacuring process

intel has been 1 year ahead of amd when it comes to manufacuring process
65nm > 45nm

it shows that if amd have had 45nm last year, amd would been on top of intel highest end ;) 

Phenom II is basicly a phenom with some tweaks, more cache and higher clocks
it shows that AMD CAN make great CPUs, even when intel has its cash up big OEMs asses ;P


Actually HTT is not truly 6 years old. The idea is, yes but the one they are using now is only about 2 years old max. And in most tests it shows that Intel QPI is about 2x faster when it comes to memory access and the such. HTT3.0 may change that but its not out yet.

This may be true but we shall never know.

AMD would also be able to do faster transitions if they had used cash to fund their R&D but instead they bought ATI costing them over 4 Billion dollars and turns out ATI was not worth even that much.

IF AMD had 45nm I doubt they would be on the top end. I can say they would have actually given Intel a run for their money but it would have been a fight to see. As for beating Core i7, not really. Mainly because AMDs 45nm would have probably been Phenom II and it would have probably been the same performer.

Even if Intel had their cash up OEMs butts it shouldn't have stopped them from making a good CPU. Phenom was a pretty big flop. They had no one to blame but themselves. Something went wrong with it much like whatever went wrong with Intels Prescott based P4s.

In the end, the 955 is pretty good but not amazing. At least until we see the OCing results. For now its meh.
a b à CPUs
April 14, 2009 5:40:12 AM

What I wanna know is how much it's going to cost. I'm looking forward to dropping one into my board and overclocking it.
April 16, 2009 11:34:40 AM

First of all, they benched ONE game. Secondly, the average FPS for high-resolution was a difference of only .6 frames between the fastest AMD and the slowest i7...a win? Nope, not even close. This could have been due to a simple platform limitation. Hell, even switching out to a different motherboard could have brought a difference of 5 frames. It's interesting that the i7 virtually creams the Phenom II in every benchmark except for the high-res gaming (one game, .6 frames difference), lowest FPS on high-res - a max difference of 5 frames between the fastest AMD and slowest i7, one encryption bench, and power ratings.

AMD seems to be gearing this as a gaming chip, while Intel has geared the i7 as an all-around good chip for gaming and applications. I still think i7 wins this one :) 
April 17, 2009 1:01:40 AM

Glad to see AMD back in the game. On paper the Phenom was supposed to be superior to Core but just wasn't in the real world. Looks like AMD is working out the bottlenecks. I'll be glad to see multiple benchmarks in situations where neither cpu is bottlenecked when it's launched. I think both companies are doing a great job of innovating so good luck to both sides, the consumer wins either way.
April 17, 2009 1:51:40 AM

No complaints here. Looks good. Its not meh, and no ifs or ands, the 9650 could easily be called meh as well. Im thinking this isnt the fastest one we will see either. But, so far so good. I hear they oc a tad better than the 940s, so maybe a good amount of 4Ghz ocees will be seen with this one, on air. What Im wondering is, if its available, will AMD go halfnode at 28nm? Thatd be wild
April 17, 2009 2:36:44 AM

@ jimmysmitty: The Game Performance benchmarks are for those who care about game performance. As in most of us.
April 17, 2009 2:51:54 AM

So, at the most commonly used res, 16x10, a 295 is bottlenecking a i7?. Im thinking an even faster cpu, or oceeing that i7 would give higher fps. If a cpu gives higher fps, especially the lowest ones, when oceed, its cpu limited then.
April 17, 2009 2:54:47 AM

When will this PCU be in stores or on sale?
April 17, 2009 2:55:53 AM

^^ Oops I meant CPU lol. @soldier37 is that a Apple keyboard?
April 17, 2009 3:06:20 AM

CPUs are slowly losing this battle. It used to be, they could handle any card, any game at 12x10, but thats no longer the case. Now we have to move up in resolution for cpus, or gpus rather, to run out of steam, and see the gpu as the slow down.
As each generation of gpu comes out, this gap widens. Im hoping game devs and things like Havok for physics, and DX11 along with W7 brings more to the cpu side of things, as itll eventually need it, as we are seeing now
April 17, 2009 3:37:04 AM

Some things thatre DX11 may not show as nice on Vista. Its too early to tell, but its possible. W7 handles things a bit differently, and it could effect DX11 , especially for MT, but we will see
April 17, 2009 3:57:13 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Some things thatre DX11 may not show as nice on Vista. Its too early to tell, but its possible. W7 handles things a bit differently, and it could effect DX11 , especially for MT, but we will see


Wow.....dosent this sound familiar.... :pfff: 
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2009 5:07:31 AM

Gee my interpretation is that the 955 is just a tad under the 920 on most things so it comes down to performance vs price.

If your a high end gamer buy i7 ... simple.

If your a low end gamer get whatever ... I don't care about you.

If your in the middle then it is a tough call as the 45nm quads Intel has (Penryn) are still slightly better in temrs of IPC for many games anyway than Phenom II.

Issue is the price of the overall system - there isn't anything in it really.

I think you just get whatever you can for the best price ad enjoy the experience.

If AMD hadn't done a good job improving the original Phenom design your i7's would be up around 1000 each and the Penryn's would still be at i7 prices.

Given what you can get a 9650 for now, you would be hard pressed to build a better Phenom II system for the same money.

Don't forget Intel's 45nm Penryn Quads - te 8 series might be crappy but the 9 series are very good.

I just recommended Intel ... yes ... it is one of those traitorous days AMD fans ... I apologise (self flaggellates for 10 mins).
April 17, 2009 5:31:11 AM

One thing here, its so close in gaming, its almost as if it doesnt matter. I agree, get what costs least for the most performance. Theres deals to be had. Competition is good.
Anyone on that half node switch? Think theyd do it?
April 17, 2009 4:21:16 PM

I read somewhere that the Phenom does better when mixed with an ati gpu, im not sure about this though but if it does turn out to be true then amd could have a winner on their hands
April 17, 2009 4:58:22 PM

the intel Q8 series is Yonah not penryn.

and also if an i7 965 is a bottleneck for a 4870 X2 then it sure as hell is gonna be a bottleneck for a GTX 295
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2009 5:11:31 PM

Reynod said:
Gee my interpretation is that the 955 is just a tad under the 920 on most things so it comes down to performance vs price.

If your a high end gamer buy i7 ... simple.

If your a low end gamer get whatever ... I don't care about you.

If your in the middle then it is a tough call as the 45nm quads Intel has (Penryn) are still slightly better in temrs of IPC for many games anyway than Phenom II.

Issue is the price of the overall system - there isn't anything in it really.

I think you just get whatever you can for the best price ad enjoy the experience.

If AMD hadn't done a good job improving the original Phenom design your i7's would be up around 1000 each and the Penryn's would still be at i7 prices.

Given what you can get a 9650 for now, you would be hard pressed to build a better Phenom II system for the same money.

Don't forget Intel's 45nm Penryn Quads - te 8 series might be crappy but the 9 series are very good.

I just recommended Intel ... yes ... it is one of those traitorous days AMD fans ... I apologise (self flaggellates for 10 mins).


I saw a rumor that Intel is dropping C2Q prices again - think the 9550 is dropping by $32, the lower bins even more..
a b à CPUs
April 17, 2009 5:16:30 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
One thing here, its so close in gaming, its almost as if it doesnt matter. I agree, get what costs least for the most performance. Theres deals to be had. Competition is good.
Anyone on that half node switch? Think theyd do it?


Just when is AMD/GF planning on going to 28nm? Last I heard, they needed gen1 HKMG to work on 32nm, and according to their roadmap of last November (or whenever analyst day was), they wouldn't get to 32nm until a year from now.

BTW, I saw the below post on MSNMoney, on BD:

Quote:
The imbedded GPU (Fusion) part is currently going through the 4th or 5th re-re-design and they still can't get it right. Two VP's have thrown in the towel and left the company and these are long time AMD guys. There have been several different approaches including competing designs between ATI group and the AMD design group. The current design sounds like a scaled back core perhaps K6/K7 technology with the GPU in bulk process rather than SOI. The ATI GPU seems to not like SOI. All that means is that the processor cores would run at pre K8 speed. That would seriously degrade the Fusion performance. My guess is that product will never tape out just like others. AMD has spent $Millions on designs then cancelled the project before completion. Besides the huge design engineering there is also all of the new product test hardware and software costs. The hardware gets trashed when the project is cancelled and all of the engineering costs for these projects is wasted money. The new CEO Dirk Meyers seems to have a much bigger mess on his hands then he inherited from Hector Ruiz and it sounds like it is getting worse. Internal reorgs are not making things better and more lay offs in manufacturing are rumored. It's hard to be optimistic in that environment.



a b à CPUs
April 17, 2009 6:03:24 PM

Helloworld_98 said:
the intel Q8 series is Yonah not penryn.

and also if an i7 965 is a bottleneck for a 4870 X2 then it sure as hell is gonna be a bottleneck for a GTX 295



Where do you get your facts? :sarcastic: 
April 17, 2009 6:56:25 PM

AMD is losing it... I been AMD fanboy for 10 years but they lost me after seeing Core I7. AMD should at least put their dukes up, Intel is giving them a a$$kicking for last 3 years.

Good thing I went with Intel CI7 and not waiting for AM3 quads.
April 18, 2009 12:04:20 AM

Helloworld_98 said:
the intel Q8 series is Yonah not penryn.



What the hell? Q8xxx and Q9xxx are Yorkfield.......Yonah and Penryn are damn mobile cores.......Penryn being the T series and Yonah is the old ass Core Duo mobile chips.....
April 18, 2009 12:06:25 AM

If anyone wants to, they can go around, and find "sources" that proclaim anything they want to expound upon. Well, heres one for you, and I for one am not happy about it. According to "sources", the new 8xx chipset wont include a series 7xx IGP. Id add that to your doom and gloom also
April 19, 2009 12:15:22 PM

spathotan said:
What the hell? Q8xxx and Q9xxx are Yorkfield.......Yonah and Penryn are damn mobile cores.......Penryn being the T series and Yonah is the old ass Core Duo mobile chips.....



looool yes
April 19, 2009 12:16:09 PM

spathotan said:
What the hell? Q8xxx and Q9xxx are Yorkfield.......Yonah and Penryn are damn mobile cores.......Penryn being the T series and Yonah is the old ass Core Duo mobile chips.....


loooool yes
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2009 3:58:12 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
If anyone wants to, they can go around, and find "sources" that proclaim anything they want to expound upon. Well, heres one for you, and I for one am not happy about it. According to "sources", the new 8xx chipset wont include a series 7xx IGP. Id add that to your doom and gloom also


?? I thought you didn't care for IGPs anyway, or maybe that's just Intel IGPs :) .

As for the doom & gloom, we're pretty much the same except on opposite sides of the fence :D . Let's face the facts - AMD stumbled badly 3 years ago and are still paying the price. Yes recently they have made a comeback, but only part-way IMHO, and really the main reason I tend to view the AMD glass as half-empty is because of their unconscionable "40% better across a wide variety of applications" BS spouted by the CTO, when he either did or should have known better. Lying to the customers is as bad as anticompetitive practices.

In short, AMD talks the talk but Intel walks the walk..

However just as soon as the roles are reversed I'll be on your side of the fence. I don't owe Intel my loyalty, just my business as long as they continue to deliver on what they promise.
April 19, 2009 4:08:55 PM

spathotan said:
What the hell? Q8xxx and Q9xxx are Yorkfield.......Yonah and Penryn are damn mobile cores.......Penryn being the T series and Yonah is the old ass Core Duo mobile chips.....

No because 'Pentium dual cores', eg the e5200 are Yonah based not Penryn.

Yonah and Penryn are also the name for the general architecture.
April 19, 2009 4:49:00 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
?? I thought you didn't care for IGPs anyway, or maybe that's just Intel IGPs :) .

As for the doom & gloom, we're pretty much the same except on opposite sides of the fence :D . Let's face the facts - AMD stumbled badly 3 years ago and are still paying the price. Yes recently they have made a comeback, but only part-way IMHO, and really the main reason I tend to view the AMD glass as half-empty is because of their unconscionable "40% better across a wide variety of applications" BS spouted by the CTO, when he either did or should have known better. Lying to the customers is as bad as anticompetitive practices.

In short, AMD talks the talk but Intel walks the walk..

However just as soon as the roles are reversed I'll be on your side of the fence. I don't owe Intel my loyalty, just my business as long as they continue to deliver on what they promise.


Take the best P1, use a 3xxx series gpu, and youll see 40%, whether its gpu or cpu oriented. Thats using a 4870 with this cpu, or a 955. Not every app, but alot, or spot on. No lies, no deceit, but spot on.
Just going on the gpu usage, thats conservative. Read it into context, and how it was displayed, as this is how the comparison was made. If people werent sharp enough to discern their presentation, ignorance is no excuse.
Im not putting you in that category, I just think you need to actually look at the differences P2 and the 4xxx series brings as a whole over the previous gen. This isnt Intel, they also have gpus.
Yes, I do care about IGPs, as a seeding effect for PC gaming. Its why Im disappointed with the rumored 8 series coming, and its old IGP usage. Im thinking theyll add the 4xxx series IGP later on at 40nm, which will completely dominate anything out there, and yes, itll be at least 40% better than the current one
April 19, 2009 4:58:46 PM

I like how that site used a DDR2 board to bench the 955... I mean really... WTF?
April 19, 2009 5:11:29 PM

I've always been a firm believer that Intel chips are better, faster, run cooler, etc. But I've always still bought AMD. Let's face it, in the real world, for some of us, price is more important than benchmarks.

The Core i7s are faster, and those of you who have to have the fastest will choose Intel. But that doesn't mean you have to slag off AMD: they're offering perfectly decent chips for those of us in the middle of the market who want some respectable performance without paying through the nose for it.

So I guess my only point is, can't we all just get along?

(and the irony is I'm going to get flamed for that comment, lol)
April 19, 2009 5:32:18 PM

ubernoob said:
I've always been a firm believer that Intel chips are better, faster, run cooler, etc. But I've always still bought AMD. Let's face it, in the real world, for some of us, price is more important than benchmarks.

The Core i7s are faster, and those of you who have to have the fastest will choose Intel. But that doesn't mean you have to slag off AMD: they're offering perfectly decent chips for those of us in the middle of the market who want some respectable performance without paying through the nose for it.

So I guess my only point is, can't we all just get along?

(and the irony is I'm going to get flamed for that comment, lol)

Unfortunately, people get all emo about this subject. Take that out of the equation, and I totally agree with you. Even not taking it out I do. Best position to have
April 19, 2009 5:35:32 PM

and the thing is Core i7 is only enough faster in extremely high end rigs, otherwise the phenom II will beat it or have no real world difference.
April 19, 2009 5:39:22 PM

Ive heard maybe a dozen or so people who actually have both setups, about half say they really dont notice any difference, the other half? OMGITBSUBEROOOBER thing out. Like I said, remove the emo out, and thats where it lies
April 19, 2009 5:43:54 PM

'spose it helps either way that most people are upgrading from pentium 4's and 6000 X2's.
April 19, 2009 5:44:47 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Ive heard maybe a dozen or so people who actually have both setups, about half say they really dont notice any difference, the other half? OMGITBSUBEROOOBER thing out. Like I said, remove the emo out, and thats where it lies


That can be said with basically any of todays hardware. You only see the difference in benchmarking, there are no real world visable differences.
April 19, 2009 5:46:33 PM

Well, most of them did say the video thing was better, but how often was the usage? And maybe the scratched something and missed it anyhow? heheh
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2009 5:57:17 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Take the best P1, use a 3xxx series gpu, and youll see 40%, whether its gpu or cpu oriented. Thats using a 4870 with this cpu, or a 955. Not every app, but alot, or spot on. No lies, no deceit, but spot on.
Just going on the gpu usage, thats conservative. Read it into context, and how it was displayed, as this is how the comparison was made. If people werent sharp enough to discern their presentation, ignorance is no excuse.
Im not putting you in that category, I just think you need to actually look at the differences P2 and the 4xxx series brings as a whole over the previous gen. This isnt Intel, they also have gpus.
Yes, I do care about IGPs, as a seeding effect for PC gaming. Its why Im disappointed with the rumored 8 series coming, and its old IGP usage. Im thinking theyll add the 4xxx series IGP later on at 40nm, which will completely dominate anything out there, and yes, itll be at least 40% better than the current one


Wait a minute - I'll have to go hunt up the EweToob video (maybe Enigma can help me out here - he probably has them catalogued :D  ) but I'm pretty sure the CTO was referring to 40% better than Core2, not K8 - IIRC he used the phrase "our competition" and that obviously would be Intel, not their prior-gen product.

And we all know that 40% better turned out to be a 20% deficit..
a b à CPUs
April 19, 2009 6:02:24 PM

ubernoob said:
I've always been a firm believer that Intel chips are better, faster, run cooler, etc. But I've always still bought AMD. Let's face it, in the real world, for some of us, price is more important than benchmarks.

The Core i7s are faster, and those of you who have to have the fastest will choose Intel. But that doesn't mean you have to slag off AMD: they're offering perfectly decent chips for those of us in the middle of the market who want some respectable performance without paying through the nose for it.

So I guess my only point is, can't we all just get along?

(and the irony is I'm going to get flamed for that comment, lol)


Well that's a point right there - prices are a moving target, so unless you did a comparison today, I don't see how you can prejudge i7 as "paying through the nose". 2 months ago, maybe.

Most of us can take opposing viewpoints without flaming each other (or should be able to by now :D  ). But if you're saying this topic has been covered in depth and then some already, then I agree. But, that's SOP for the forums - too many people get their jollies flagellating deceased equines :D 
    • 1 / 6
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!