AMD Phenom II Review

lemonlimelemonlime Canada Member
edited September 2010 in Science & Tech
«1

Comments

  • QCHQCH Ancient Guru Chicago Area - USA Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    Very nice review... It's a shame that the Phenom II didn't do better but I am encouraged that AMD/ATI are back on the right path.

    Oh, and INTEL... Get Icrontic some review items!!!
  • WinfreyWinfrey waddafuh Missouri Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    srsly Intel ^^
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    Seems like a viable upgrade for someone like me with an older system and not a lot of money lying around. I wonder how long it'll be before i7 prices drop, though?
  • ZuntarZuntar North Carolina Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    Nice review Mike!

    I'm still gonna wait for the next round of fighters to hit the ring.
  • KhaosKhaos New Hampshire
    edited January 2009
    Excellent review, Mike. Very informative.

    I sure wish that AMD's FPU performance was better. That's what is really killing them in the benchmarks, synthetic or otherwise.

    The memory bandwidth on both the i7/X58 and Phenom II platforms is more than adequate for today's applications.
  • lemonlimelemonlime Canada Member
    edited January 2009
    Thanks all. Just got some updates from AMD:

    Immediate OEM availability from: Dell, Cyber Power and Vigor

    Immediate part availability from: NewEgg, NCIX, mwave, zipzoomfly, Amazon and Tiger Direct.
  • KometeKomete Member
    edited January 2009
    Great review, I'm still reading it. I finally see an Amd upgrade path for me. There is only one thing I wish you guys could have done in your review if you would have had the time. That is, if you could have posted max over clock performance of the AMD chips in with all the benchmarks. I notice, no one does this anymore.

    Now back to more reading :)
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    Mike's still working on the OC. ;)
  • KometeKomete Member
    edited January 2009
    After reading through, I have to say one of these chips would be more than enough for me (with a little ocing involved). I wonder if the Phenom II x3's and x2's will overclock well when they come out. Would be nice.

    Once the prices drop some I may have to snatch one up. Great review fellas! Way to go Lemon lime!
  • Mt_GoatMt_Goat Head Cheezy Knob Pflugerville (north of Austin) Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    Excellent review Mike! Intel may still hold the lead in overall performance. But I think the Phenom II is still a very viable platform when price is brought into the picture. For most folks this is more power then they would ever need and comes at a much better price point.
  • DrLiamDrLiam British Columbia
    edited January 2009
    Great review and I agree this is a step in the right direction for AMD. A few aces up their sleeves would be nice though.
  • edited January 2009
    I observed that the comparisons were made with a 2Ghz quad core Phenom II. A retailer near me sells the Phenom II Quad core at a 3Ghz clock speed. Would that mean that I could add another 33% to the benchmarks for AMD and say that it is a better choice than the i7?
    I can't wait until AMD blows Intel out of the water as far as multithreading with their release of the 12 core processor I read about last year.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    12 cores is no better than 4 in today's software environment, really. There's such a tiny proportion of software that's prepared for parallel processing that it'll make no difference in the near future.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    Unfortunately not. The Core i7 is simply a superior chip in virtually every regard. AMD has improved their standings with the Phenom II, but as the conclusion notes it's a feat that is a day late and a dollar short.

    By the time AMD releases a 12 core chip, Intel will be well on their way to 8 core chips with hyperthreading to support 16 threads at a time. Anyone who wants AMD to succeed must wait for the Bulldozer in 2010.
    James wrote:
    I observed that the comparisons were made with a 2Ghz quad core Phenom II. A retailer near me sells the Phenom II Quad core at a 3Ghz clock speed. Would that mean that I could add another 33% to the benchmarks for AMD and say that it is a better choice than the i7?
    I can't wait until AMD blows Intel out of the water as far as multithreading with their release of the 12 core processor I read about last year.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    Xtremesystems had a party at CES that we sadly had to miss (well, Fatcat and Pseudonym made it), but anyways - they hit 6.4ghz last I heard. Liquid helium.
  • BuddyJBuddyJ Dept. of Propaganda OKC Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    They say you can't polish a turd ... but apparently if you cool it well enough, you can overclock it enough to blow the competition away. I'm all for the Phenom II.
  • SnarkasmSnarkasm Madison, WI Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    Liquid helium? High rollers.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    It doesn't work? Make it colder.
  • KometeKomete Member
    edited January 2009
    That is true untill you factor in what you pay for performance. For the next 6 months to get into a core I7 setup will cost you about 700. 300 for the chip, 200+ for the mobo ( the lowest priced now), and around another 200 for memory. And that'll get you the low end offerings of I7. And as along as the q series quad cores are around, I don't see intel dropping the prices anytime soon.

    To get into the best of Phenom2, which by no means is a slouch, will be less than 400. 200 for the chip, 100 for the mobo, and 50 or so for the memory. The prices on the Phenom 2's will drop, making it even better deal a little later on.

    Grant it, I didn't include harddrives etc... But for the average shmo, and that includes me, core I7 is unattainable. However, I can get close to I7 performance, and even beat some of the lower offerings be going with the best of the Phenom 2 at nearly half the cost.

    If I go quad core, I really don't see an option other than phenom 2. There are the q cpu's series but all the worth wile motherboards are around 200. Killing the deal for me.


    Thrax wrote:
    Unfortunately not. The Core i7 is simply a superior chip in virtually every regard. AMD has improved their standings with the Phenom II, but as the conclusion notes it's a feat that is a day late and a dollar short.

    By the time AMD releases a 12 core chip, Intel will be well on their way to 8 core chips with hyperthreading to support 16 threads at a time. Anyone who wants AMD to succeed must wait for the Bulldozer in 2010.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    All the worthwhile motherboards are around $200? Hardly. The DFI BloodIron is an exceptional motherboard and hovers around $100. Even the world's best boards from DFI aren't much more than $140.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    they hit 6.4ghz last I heard. Liquid helium
    You can strap a parachute on a pig, pitch it out an airplane, and then say it flies. Intel or AMD, I find the liquid nitrogen/helium/fartgas demonstrations to be completely useless apart from entertainment. So what!!

    Komete, you can get a Q6600/motherboard combo EASILY for about $250 that will keep up with a Phenom II combo. Look, AMD is starting to go forward again (thank Heavens!), but they've merely transitioned from big disappointment, to yawn, to 'OK' we aren't crippled anymore.

    No, I'm not a Fanboy of any stupid brand or manufacturer. They are all just corporations, differing mainly in the letters that spell out their names. I'd buy Via if they had top performance at good prices. (AMD is Formula 1 and Rock 'n Roll compared to humble VIA.)
  • KometeKomete Member
    edited January 2009
    You guys are both right. When you factor in the Q series quad cores there are some deals to be had. I've been mulling over what's out there. For me, if I were to go with a quad, it have to be a p45 motherboard. And looking at what's available, the prices start at around 150 for what I would accept. Pairing a quad core with a 3 generation old chip set just doesn't seem right to me.

    All that aside, Most likely my next pc will a highly overclocked e5200. Even my intel hating self can't pass that one up. That and the aps I use benefit more from a higher clock speeds than multi cores.

    Leonardo, I think the Fanboy stuff is nearly over. But I still wear my AMD opteron T-shirt every now and then.lol

    Thrax wrote:
    All the worthwhile motherboards are around $200? Hardly. The DFI BloodIron is an exceptional motherboard and hovers around $100. Even the world's best boards from DFI aren't much more than $140.
    Leonardo wrote:
    You can strap a parachute on a pig, pitch it out an airplane, and then say it flies. Intel or AMD, I find the liquid nitrogen/helium/fartgas demonstrations to be completely useless apart from entertainment. So what!!

    Komete, you can get a Q6600/motherboard combo EASILY for about $250 that will keep up with a Phenom II combo. Look, AMD is starting to go forward again (thank Heavens!), but they've merely transitioned from big disappointment, to yawn, to 'OK' we aren't crippled anymore.

    No, I'm not a Fanboy of any stupid brand or manufacturer. They are all just corporations, differing mainly in the letters that spell out their names. I'd buy Via if they had top performance at good prices. (AMD is Formula 1 and Rock 'n Roll compared to humble VIA.)
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    Xtremesystems had a party at CES that we sadly had to miss (well, Fatcat and Pseudonym made it), but anyways - they hit 6.4ghz last I heard. Liquid helium.

    Ok lets get some facts out about the PhenomII at the Xtremesystems party.

    It was on liquid helium. They got WCPUID of 6.5ghz. The were able to do 3DMark05 @ 6.3ghz with 2 cores lower clocked to 6.0ghz and running @ -240c (thats not a typo)

    The best we saw the "Sekrit i7 975" that intel was using was 5.3ghz on LN2.
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    They broke the world record for 3Dmark05, right?
  • BuddyJBuddyJ Dept. of Propaganda OKC Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    Extreme Liquid Rainbow Frozen Gypsy Tear cooling helps show us what a chip's limits are, and those limits translate into the performance numbers we see using mid-high end air cooling and water. We're now seeing one chip that may be slower clock-for-clock, but offers a higher performance ceiling going up against a chip that's faster out of the box but can only go so high. Which one do you pick?
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    You guys are both right. When you factor in the Q series quad cores there are some deals to be had. I've been mulling over what's out there. For me, if I were to go with a quad, it have to be a p45 motherboard.
    The hard decision is not with price/performance ratios and manufacturer selection. You can get an outstanding performing machine from a combo based on either manufacturers' current technology. The hard decision is deciding what your time horizon is and rolling the dice for the best projected 'upgradeability' path. I have no answer for that!

    I'm sitting on Q6600-Socket 775 platforms. In my case, it turned out to be excellent. They are over a year old and still top performers, overclocked as they are. Were I having to pick a new platform today, ugh, I'd have to start the research all over again. A year ago, for top performance in multi-tasking the choice was obvious. Now that AMD has finally fallen out of bed and is awake, answers aren't so simple.
  • fatcatfatcat Mizzou Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    They broke the world record for 3Dmark05, right?

    yes they set the 3DMark05 record saturday night.
  • edited January 2009
    Anybody looking to upgrade or just build a brand new computer, AMD's Phenom II would be the way to go IMO. In terms of cost, I wanted to go i7 but good motherboards cost more than $300 along with another $500 for the cheapest i7. That is just outrageously overpriced not to mention the ridiculously overpriced DDR3 memory kits they have out.

    AMD has a winner with the new Phenom II X4's and the AM3 based versions are going to have Dual DDR2/3 memory controllers which will only certify your AM2+ motherboard's longevity and cheaply priced DDR2 memory.

    I've ordered my Phenom II 940.
  • TushonTushon I'm scared, Coach Alexandria, VA Icrontian
    edited January 2009
    I've been trying to decide between saving up and going i7 or getting a Phenom II 920/940 and this article + comments definitely made me go for AMD. Spending ~2x the money isnt worth it to me. I don't need ridiculously top of the line stuff but the Phenom II will definitely meet my needs. At least it will let me more fully utilize my PNY 9800 GTX+. Athlon 64 3500+ just isnt cutting it lol.
  • Sledgehammer70Sledgehammer70 California Icrontian
    edited February 2009
    So I ran 3DMark06 at stock clocks on my new Phenom II 940 :) got some scores right around yours. Looks like my CPU score etched out the Q6600's but that could be for many reasons.

    CPU: 4574
    Score: 16452
Sign In or Register to comment.