Phenom II X4 965 review

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

Crysis

Crysis is still one of the most GPU-centric games on the market and is considered by many to be the standard that new hardware is measured against. Crysis features both DX9 and DX10 support for Windows 7, and we’ll be running it in both configurations for testing.

phenom2_crybench1

We used the “Crysis Benchmark Tool” to benchmark Crysis. The “benchmark_cpu” timedemo was used. There is quite a bit of building destruction and other heavy physics going on in this particular timedemo, and it is a good choice for CPU benchmarking. We used two different configurations for testing. The first uses a 1024×768 resolution and the Medium IQ settings to simulate a substantial CPU bottleneck. The second configuration is set for DX10 rendering and a higher 1680×1050 resolution with “High” IQ settings.

1024 x 786, Medium IQ, DX9 (Higher is better.)

At low quality in a CPU bottlenecked system the Core i7 920 takes the lead with a higher average frame rate. It used to matter more when players were CPU limited by their systems. Now with today’s video cards and processors, there’s no reason to play at such low resolutions and detail settings.

1680 x 1050, High IQ, DX10 (Higher is better.)

This is where the money is. Today’s gamers shouldn’t have to sacrifice image quality and resolution just to be able to play a game. The increased resolution and image quality combined with DirectX 10’s effects create a much more immersing gaming experience provided the frames per second the computer produces stay high enough to keep the action from getting choppy. It’s here that the Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition pulls off its biggest coup d’état. Any processor pushing over 30fps in this test deserves accolades.

« Previous Next page »

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Comments

13 Aug 2009 ~ 12:57am Thrax IN B4 CLIFF.
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
13 Aug 2009 ~ 2:11am Koreish In after Cliff.
13 Aug 2009 ~ 2:28am shwaip It's like we're running a train in here.
13 Aug 2009 ~ 5:42am Daniel Could you add a TOC or a dropdown menu to the long reviews?
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.
13 Aug 2009 ~ 2:38pm lemonlime Great review, Pete!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?