Phenom II X4 965 review

Peter G. 13 Aug, 2009 at 12:47am ET Article published in Tech

Cinebench R10 64-bit

Cinebench R10 is produced by Maxon. It is based on their Cinema 4D animation application and is very CPU intensive. It allows benchmarks to be conducted using one, or all available CPU cores. Additional cores can provide very large improvements in Cinebench scores.

Three tests are conducted using Cinebench. The first is the rendering test utilizing only a single core. The second uses all available cores. Once both tests are conducted, Cinebench reports how much faster the multi-threaded test was. This scaling information is useful to determine how well multiple cores scale during rendering workloads.

The third test is the Cinebench OpenGL 3D rendering benchmark. We’ve thrown it in as well for good measure.

Placeholder caption

The single-threaded benchmark favors the Phenom II X4 965 most likely due to its higher clock speed. In multi-threaded tests the Core i7 pulls to the lead again thanks to hyperthreading once more.

Lower is better.

The scaling test shows processor efficiency across cores. The Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition, based on our previous reviews, is comparable to other quad core chips on the market. The Core i7 920 bombs the test, however. Hyperthreading is good for increasing computational power but it’s not as efficient as adding extra cores. In the real world, the results of this test probably don’t mean much but we find it to be interesting nonetheless.

Higher is better.

The Cinebench OpenGL test is a good general indicator for how well the CPU will handle 3D games. OpenGL isn’t relegated just to gaming use but it’s quite common in today’s titles. The close to 600 point difference between processors makes sense when one considers that the benchmark is partial to clock speed over number of cores. Eight virtual cores at a lower clock speed in this case surpasses the Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition’s 3.4Ghz speed.

« Previous Next page »

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Comments

1. 
   13 Aug 2009 ~ 12:57am Thrax IN B4 CLIFF.
2. 
   13 Aug 2009 ~ 2:03am Cliff_Forster Peter,
   
   Love the review methodology. It's too easy for hardware reviewers to just point to the raw data without discussing what it really means. You did not fall in line with that stale methodology and I for one appreciate it.
   
   I especially love your explanation of the gaming benchmarks on page #8. Now, does anyone want to buy my 720? I gotta have a 965
3. 
   13 Aug 2009 ~ 2:11am Koreish In after Cliff.
4. 
   13 Aug 2009 ~ 2:28am shwaip It's like we're running a train in here.
5. 
   13 Aug 2009 ~ 5:42am Daniel Could you add a TOC or a dropdown menu to the long reviews?
6. 
   13 Aug 2009 ~ 8:52am Thrax Hi, Daniel!
   
   We appreciate the feedback, and I wanted to let you know that that feature is definitely in the works.
7. 
   13 Aug 2009 ~ 2:38pm lemonlime Great review, Pete!
8. 
   14 Aug 2009 ~ 1:20am Abhinav Goswami The 965 is the new king in VFM ( Value for Money ) package. The ecosystem for 920 is expensive along with the processor itself.
   AMD had made a good comeback. Not the top dog, but still giving in tension to Intel.
   
   May I ask why AMD set up was run with 4 GB RAM ? Stuffing in 2 more GB would increase score. OK, intel does have triple channel, but with extra 2 GB DDR3-1600 RAM, AMD would perform better. Yes, if its DDR2-667, then adding it would actually lower the performnace, but DDR301600 is quite quick so it will increase performance a bit.
   
   Anyways, nice review. I am not waiting for Sandy Bridge. From what I have read, IBM is ready with 32mm tech. AMD could go to IBM and come up with 32nm Phenoms, yes just like Intel Tick Tock.
9. 
   14 Aug 2009 ~ 1:22am lordbean

   Abhinav Goswami wrote:

   The 965 is the new king in VFM ( Value for Money ) package. The ecosystem for 920 is expensive along with the processor itself.

   
   True, but this probably won't hold for long. Once the Lynnfield Core i5s launch in bulk, this CPU will probably be ousted in the value-for-money category.
10. 
    14 Aug 2009 ~ 1:27am Thrax

    Abhinav Goswami wrote:

    The 965 is the new king in VFM ( Value for Money ) package. The ecosystem for 920 is expensive along with the processor itself.
    AMD had made a good comeback. Not the top dog, but still giving in tension to Intel.
    
    May I ask why AMD set up was run with 4 GB RAM ? Stuffing in 2 more GB would increase score. OK, intel does have triple channel, but with extra 2 GB DDR3-1600 RAM, AMD would perform better. Yes, if its DDR2-667, then adding it would actually lower the performnace, but DDR301600 is quite quick so it will increase performance a bit.
    
    Anyways, nice review. I am not waiting for Sandy Bridge. From what I have read, IBM is ready with 32mm tech. AMD could go to IBM and come up with 32nm Phenoms, yes just like Intel Tick Tock.

    
    AMD's fabs are not ready to handle 32nm, and they won't be until 2011. We're at least a year off from a 32nm AMD product.
    
    Secondly, adding a third 2GB DIMM to an AMD machine would disable dual channel. Obviously that's not ideal.
11. 
    14 Aug 2009 ~ 9:15am Cliff_Forster Abhinav,
    
    On the memory front, I give Peter allot of credit for pointing that out on the memory bandwidth benchmark. He says it is a bit of an apple and orange at that point. You will find a number of professional reviews that don't go through the trouble, they just stick up the graph and assume the reader has a clue, which is not a balanced way to look at two separate platforms.
    
    Now, we could potentially take 8GB and slap it on the AMD board, but are we promoting a system configuration most users will find practical? I'm not 100% sure, I use 8GB of DDR2 on my AM2+ board, and honestly, there is very little benefit over 4 GB. I will say it does seem to make large program installs a little faster, and its nice to be able to pre load any application I want on boot up knowing that its not going to slow me down, but in terms of in application performance, I don't think 4 GB of DDR2 ever proved to be a real bottleneck, much less DDR3, and I think Peter does a good job of not sensationalizing the difference in the memory bandwidth benchmark. Its there for full disclosure, but the point is made that its plenty of bandwidth either way.
12. 
    14 Aug 2009 ~ 6:21pm lordbean I have to agree with cliff, especially since adding 2GB would throttle the system down to one channel. 4GB of DDR3 is not a bottleneck.
13. 
    14 Aug 2009 ~ 10:19pm BuddyJ Thanks guys. You've hit the nail on the head. With processor reviews it's important to use system setups that are similar to what normal users would see. Most AMD users run dual-channel setups. Most Intel users run triple channel setups with the Core i7 chips. Running dual channel on a Core i7 works, but nobody sells dual channel Core i7 kits (remember that Core i7 requires lower voltage RAM so even people with existing DDR3 hardware end up buying new memory that runs under 1.65v). We went with the standard config, catering to the lowest common denominator even with our RAM speed settings. Benching with DDR3-2000 is unrealistic too. That stuff can be expensive!
    
    Users looking for the absolute best performance will still buy Core i7s, $300 motherboards, hyperfast DDR3 and massive heatsinks. They're not the target audience for the 965BE. It's those of us that are looking for an upgrade where you might be able to carry over some existing parts like your RAM, where thinking of spending over $200 on a motherboard makes you feel guilty, and where your pockets aren't as deep as you wish them to be.
    
    I'm glad to see AMD closing the gap. They aren't out of the woods yet, however. Lynnfield will bring a direct competitor to the game that brings some of the best parts of the Core i7 down to "normal" quad cores. It won't have hyperthreading but it should gain clock speed. And if you look at some of the benchmarks out there, Core i7 doesn't suffer much when dropped to a dual-channel memory system. Lynnfield shouldn't either.
    
    I expect life to get much more interesting in the coming weeks.
14. 
    14 Aug 2009 ~ 10:42pm Thrax Hell, Lynnfield even has HT. The Core i7-branded Lynnfields have HT enabled. The Core i5 ones don't. Really, the Lynnfield's biggest loss is QPI.
    
    I don't think the world needs Lynnfield, or a second socket, or the batshit crazy brand muddying, but it should be a pretty strong contender to AMD's price/performance crown.
15. 
    14 Aug 2009 ~ 10:50pm Garg The crappy thing is that the Intel budget processor comes on a budget socket, too. At least with AMD, budget processor and best-performing processor have the same socket, so you've got an upgrade path.
    
    Like you said before Thrax, it's like 754/939 all over again. I felt pretty bad for people who bought 754 boards last time around the crazy train.
16. 
    14 Aug 2009 ~ 11:19pm lordbean I'm inclined to agree here. Lynnfield CPUs will offer fantastic bang for your buck, but when you want to move up to that shiny new core i11, you're gonna have to buy a 1366 mobo. 1156 is a dead-end socket., especially given its limited bus data rate.
17. 
    21 Aug 2009 ~ 4:03am ardichoke Wait... this sounds extremely familiar.... dead end sockets? Isn't this exactly one of the insults being hurled at AM3 in a thread a few weeks ago?
18. 
    21 Aug 2009 ~ 4:10am Thrax Yes, AM3 is a dead-end socket, and so is LGA1156.
    
    I am a PC pragmatist. I defend what makes sense, and hate on what doesn't. I buy the fastest part of the day, and I am blind to who makes it. My video cards have been ATI and NVIDIA, my CPUs have been AMD and Intel (something every old-timer on this forum knows), and I've used every hot mobo maker over the years: Abit, Asus, EPoX, DFI, etc. etc.
    
    If it stinks, I call it. Brands don't mean dick.
19. 
    21 Aug 2009 ~ 4:14am ardichoke I'm just saying, someone threw the dead end socket out there in a debate (to put it nicely) about which was the better value, AMD or Intel yet failed to recognize the fact that 1156 is a dead end socket as well. Really though, every socket is a dead end socket. They all get replaced sooner or later and I have the feeling that most people have a tendency to replace their motherboard and CPU at the same time anyway. Unless of course one or the other dies.
20. 
    21 Aug 2009 ~ 10:40am Thrax Nobody failed to recognize the fact, because LGA1156 isn't replacing the <i>real</i> Intel socket that's LGA1366. LGA1366 will be alive and well until 2011, and anyone who bought into Nehalem will have the opportunity to buy a newer, more powerful, smaller, colder, faster generation of chips with the Westmere.
    
    Anyone who buys into AM3 will only ever get faster Phenom II X4s. It has no future.
21. 
    25 Aug 2009 ~ 1:07am Cliff_Forster I have yet to install but I just received my 965 BE in the mail today.
    
    Ardichoke makes a good point, all sockets are in a sense dead end, but can we all at least give AMD a little credit for the decision to make AM3 CPU's compatible in AM2+ sockets? I think that is a huge deal. If you were an AM2+ user, AMD did not abandon you, and its hard to say where they will go after AM3 or if they could pull something off that is similar. My 965 BE will be going into an AM2+ socket with 8 GB of DDR2.
22. 
    25 Aug 2009 ~ 2:00pm BuddyJ What makes a dead-end socket? Is it a current socket with a clear upgrade in the works? Cuz AMD (for better or for worse) has nothing announced on the desktop to replace the AM3. I suppose there will be something in 2011 but it's all up in the air now isn't it?