AMD Phenom II processor bought, benchmarked, coveted

AMD, a company not exactly known for meeting its own deadlines, seemed to be trying to avoid news of painful delays for the Phenom II by simply not letting anyone say when the thing would be available. Now the chip is apparently in the hands of one lucky gamer at the HardOCP forums, Table21, who was kind enough to run it through its paces. The Phenom II 940 running at 3GHz scored a 4,091 on 3DMark06 and, once OC'd up to 3.85GHz, delivered a score of 5,086. It's rather too early to draw any conclusions from these numbers, and we don't know what he paid for the thing, but that performance does fall well behind Intel's Core i7 Extreme that was similarly benchmarked last month, scoring 6,608 at the same clock speed. That's quite a gap -- but nothing a little liquid nitrogen won't fix.

[Via PC Perspective]

[Kris S. @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:44AM]

Close enough, if the price is right, and it can be easily overclocked it will win over a lot of people.

[zioncat @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:47AM]

It seems like AMD has not had a good year on the other hand intel has already released the i7 line which is going to replace the Core 2 series. So I guess I'll keep sticking with intel until AMD stands up again.

[pavlindrom @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:59AM]

But using AMD gives Intel a worry, and results in better products.

[rock99rock @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:07AM]

@pavlindrom

Would you knowingly purchase a slower processor?

[pavlindrom @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:23AM]

For the living room/internet-only computer maybe? Well, I'd check the price first of course...

[iofthestorm @ Dec 23rd 2008 1:41PM]

@rock99rock: AMD's chips have been slower recently, but not if you compare to the Intel at the same price point. And they get even cheaper when you look at motherboard costs. A really good AMD board can be had for under $100 whereas to get a decent Intel board you'll have to spend a lot more.

[rock99rock @ Dec 23rd 2008 2:41PM]

@iofthestorm

:)

Thats not entirely accurate, you just have to know where to look and when to buy. It is quite obvious that you get more bang for your buck with AMD on the short end. Mid to high end is owned by intel. It is unfortunate that AMD cant seem to "kick it up a notch" Emeril style, and sling past Intel at least once. ATI came close or did with Nvidia.

You have good points, and are valid when looking at pricepoints. In the end, this has always been the case.

[Abuzar Baloach @ Dec 23rd 2008 3:50PM]

The cheap boards from Gigabyte are excellent and can be had for 130ish.

With that said, buy AMD! Support them to keep Intel on their toes.

[Macca @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:55AM]

Long live AMD!

[dcoaster @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:58AM]

I don't think your Mac has (or ever will use) an AMD processor.

[fieldcar @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:05AM]

OSX86 Anyone?

[Dr Robotnik @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:30AM]

68k Macs and Early PPC macs have AMD SCSI Controllers.

[Xenoterranos @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:46AM]

that's some mad random knowledge Dr. Robotnik. Remember kids, The More You Know™

The AMD proc seems very in-line with core i7 performance. The i7 in that link scored ~500 points more at 200mhz higher stock speed. Granted, it looks like the i7 oc'd better than the phenom, but I think some of you are forgetting how much Intel charges for it's Extreme line...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115200

[Andy Hughes @ Dec 23rd 2008 12:12PM]

Technically, AMD owns ATi, which makes GPU processors that can be used in Macs. So some Macs do use AMD processors. They're just located on the graphics board and have an ATi stamp on them.

[Mikeo @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:56AM]

Well, do keep in mind that this is an engineering sample instead of the final product (the chap's real lucky to get one like that)


Plus you can't compare 3DMark Scores directly. Any minor variations like RAM Speed, OS choice, even a polished BIOS, might result in big differences in conclusions.

[Soapflake @ Dec 29th 2008 10:04PM]

Right. The processor being tested is running on an AM2 motherboard using ddr2 memory. The chips wont reach full potential until they are running on AM3 motherboards.

[dcoaster @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:57AM]

Too bad liquid nitrogen isn't available to the masses.... =)

[schmitty338 @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:15AM]

Yeah...it is....any lab/medical supply store will have it and, at least here in Canada, there are no restrictions on purchasing it. I buy it all the time from a store by the University of Toronto that is open to the public....it's not even expensive.

[dcoaster @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:49AM]

I think you missed the implied issue of the feasibility of using this in an ordinary person's computer.....

[schmitty338 @ Dec 23rd 2008 11:38AM]

Well, obviously, nobody uses liquid nitrogen on a regular basis to cool their home computer...as it is very impractical since the N2 just boils away in a few minutes/hours.

I was simply stating that yes, indeed, liquid nitrogen is available 'to the masses'...

[sk @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:57AM]

This is still an AM2+ part which means DDR2 only. Why buy this CPU if you can get the AM3 socket and Phenom II that supports DDR3 in a couple of month. The AM3 part has also has a smaller TDP of 95W compared to the 940's 125W.

[makoto42 @ Dec 23rd 2008 11:27AM]

Because, for example, a 2GB DDR3 DIMM costs more than twice what an equivalent DDR2 DIMM costs, for relatively minor day-to-day performance increase. The TDP point, if accurate, interests me, but other than that, I suspect I might go for the AM2 part. Either way, I'll be waiting for AM3 part and watching how the memory market is at that point to make a decision.

[iofthestorm @ Dec 23rd 2008 1:44PM]

Because DDR3 is expensive as hell and doesn't make much of a difference in terms of performance. I can get 4GB of DDR2 for $40 now, (and I'm about to sometime soon for virtualization purposes) but DDR3 will be nowhere near that price.

[Laughing Man @ Dec 26th 2008 2:32AM]

This is true, but it would account for some of the difference in the benchmarks. The i7 were tested using the top of the line DDR3 memory with a much larger bus and throughput. The increase would account for the some of the performance difference.

Besides, we don't even know which processors are being compared. Is the i7 they are talking about the $300 or the $1200 one? And for that matter, is this the Top end of the AMD Phenom II? For all we know at this point, this could be the low end, value model. It is just too early to start bashing AMD for no reason.

[Kris120890 @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:07AM]

This is AM2+ model. The AM3 models will use DDR3 Like the core i7. There has been a 5% with pre production AM3 models already.

[Kris120890 @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:14AM]

Add "increase" after 5%.

[Blacksheep @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:16AM]

Are their going to be AM2 and AM3 socket versions of this processor, or is the AM2 version just an early release model? I'm all for upgrading to AM3, but on a budget right now, I may be inclined to just upgrade my processor, so I'm hoping there will be a large release of Socket AM2.

[Kris120890 @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:27AM]

The first two processors are AM2+ but they won't work with AM3. AM3 processors that launch in February will work with AM2+ but will work with AM3 better. AM3 motherboards will be released around February time maybe march. The new motherboards with AM3 will have existing chipsets but new ones will be launched very soon. If you want to go AMD you're better waiting until May-June.

[Blacksheep @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:44AM]

Thanks, maybe I will wait and do a whole mobo and processor upgrade in May. I don't have two graphics cards to run in SLI mode, but right if I wanted to run that on my M2N-SLI Deluxe mobo the speed drops from PCI Express x16 to x8. So, perhaps it will indeed be time to go AM3 and DDR3.

[jeremyturnley @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:13AM]

Two BIG caveats for that conclusion:

1. Intel's Core i7 Extreme costs OVER a grand. These are going to launch at under $300. Additionally, you should be able to use these CPUs on existing sub-$100 mainboards, and the cheapest i7 board costs over $300. That's 83% of the performance for ~25% of the price. I'm not good at math, but even I can do that.
2. As was stated, these are the DDR2 versions of the chip, we don't know the numbers on the DDR3 versions that would be a more equivalent match to the core i7 chips.

[Rob @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:25AM]

This cannot be understated. Vote that guy up. The platform as a whole is where people need to look. Also, a lot of readers who are gamers should know that the Core i7 really doesn't perform much better than the Core 2 Quads. So, yes, buying a Phenom II and the rest of its platform could net you as good of a gaming machine for MUCH less than any intel system provided you plunk down for the latest and greatest that ATI or Nvidia have to offer.

[Kris120890 @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:33AM]

Couldn't agree with you more. Saying that I'm going Intel this time around. I need to build my computer soon. So If AMD are good enough by this time next year I will go AMD. Problem is by this time next year Core I7 will be in full swing. I honestly see six cores in high end processors by both AMD and Intel.

[Kris120890 @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:35AM]

When I say going Intel I mean Core 2 not core i7.

[makoto42 @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:55AM]

Hate to burst your bubble, but the price is an exaggeration. An i7 costs 299.99. I still think Phenom II will get the price performance edge, but not by that large a margin.

[jeremyturnley @ Dec 23rd 2008 11:17AM]

Yes, but an i7EXTREME (which is what the post is talking about) costs $1050.

[Rob @ Dec 23rd 2008 12:45PM]

@mokoto42:
Yes, you are correct that the entry Core i7 920 is $300 but it is still only usable on X58 chipset motherboards which START at $290, and don't forget that the X58 motherboards run on TRIPLE channel DDR3 memory which range around $180-$200. So right there in its most basic form, the start of a Core i7 will run you nearly 800 bucks, almost double that if you use the 965 like in the article. We haven't even added Hard Drives, Graphics Cards, a Power Supply, a Case, better CPU cooling, etc. The Core i7 is a great CPU, it is. But many people out there with Current AMD systems really have in the Phenom II an excellent way to upgrade if they have AM2 motherboards now, and if you don't then starting a new AMD system from scratch is comparably much much cheaper than starting a spankin new Core i7 system.

[superhobo @ Dec 23rd 2008 1:35PM]

Yes, I predict big AMD wins here.

[bebop @ Dec 23rd 2008 8:24PM]

Totally agree, but the high prices on the i7 / DDR3 / X58 are because it's just been released and there's no competition. By the time AMD puts out the AM3 sockets the Intel hardware will be priced to compete no doubt.

I'm an AMD guy, mainly because I like the words "efficiency" and "value". Love the 45W X2 parts. If you are looking at $500+ for the mobo+CPU though, Intel is in a much better position to make you an "offer you can't refuse".

[jol @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:18AM]

If it is cheap, they will come...

[TREX6662k5 @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:48AM]

Thats what HE said.

[Millard_Technologies @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:43AM]

Core i7 that does 3.8 does not cost over a grand. An i7 920 will easily OC to 4.0 on air and costs under $300. a new mobo costs about $250.

While it is expensive, if you are on Intel right now, with 775, you would have to get a new mobo to switch to AMD anyway. Why wouldn't you then just buy X58 and i7, knowing it costs about the same, and with an i7 you get a faster chip.

[Xenoterranos @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:59AM]

Mainly because it wouldn't cost the same. AMD motherboards are cheaper than Intel motherboards (given feature parity), and this Phenom will run at roughly the same performance for 300$ as that i7 does for 1100$. Hell, for the cost of that Extreme Edition i7, you could build an entire system! That's ludicrous!!

[Macdelaney @ Dec 23rd 2008 11:00AM]

core i7 does not use socket 775, so you need a new mobo anyway

[makoto42 @ Dec 23rd 2008 11:34AM]

Because x58 boards are expensive, comparatively speaking. If I go i7, I'm waiting for the mainstream chipsets to relase next year. AMD to their credit (or desperation), has consistently undercut Intel price wise on the processor part itself. We will have to wait to see how the market prices lower end i7 motherboards and what the Phenom II will cost in practice to get the complete picture, but I suspect I'll be building a Phenom II system because I suspect price/performance will be on their side.

[iofthestorm @ Dec 23rd 2008 1:46PM]

X58 costs 2-3x as much as a top of the line AMD board. Game over.

[Bill @ Dec 23rd 2008 11:10AM]

Forgive me for being obtuse, but isn't 3DMark06 a -graphics- score? Wouldn't PCMark05 or PCMark Vantage been the better benchmark to run for some real information about the CPU?

[Qual @ Dec 23rd 2008 12:29PM]

This particular article is comparing the Phenom II and the Core i7 Extreme. Why are people are bring up the no extreme edition of the i7? Compare the non-Extreme i7 vs a Phenom II, what are the performance differences? Do we have a benchmark? Someone stated the price would be around the same, but what about the performance?

[Millard_Technologies @ Dec 23rd 2008 1:10PM]

Here is what my Core i7 920 does in 3Dmark Vantage clocked to 3.5 (turbo enabled) No GPU PhysX.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=618853

[Maurice Hilarius @ Dec 23rd 2008 1:03PM]

AMD release date for Phenom II is Jan. 08, 2009.

That has been well publicised already, so all the snotty comments about meeting deadlines, etc. may be stuffed well up the back where they belong.

As others have mentioned, comparing this to an Intel i7 Extreme is retarded.
A $275 chip versus a $800 chip? Yeah, that makes sense..

Then comparing a CPU that needs a $150 to $200 motherboard versus one that needs a $450 motherboard?

[kal326 @ Dec 23rd 2008 6:10PM]

The pricing of your boards have been greatly exagerated....

X58 boards can be had for $280-300. However, I have not seen a X965 going for $800. $1000 seems be be a bit closer to the going rate.