Download the Tom's Hardware App from the App Store
The reference for current tech news
Yes No

AMD Phenom II X4 955: Finally, A Flagship

by

The last top-end processor we saw from AMD was launched in January of this year. Running at 3 GHz, it leveraged a brand-new-to-AMD 45nm manufacturing process and a number of notable micro-architecture enhancements, including a larger (and faster) L3 cache, Cool’n’Quiet 3.0 technology, and better branch prediction.

But, as mentioned, the subsequent introduction of Socket AM3 the month after saw a brand new platform flanked by more mainstream CPUs, taking a lot of the shine off of what we assumed would be a faster hardware combination.

At long last, AMD is unveiling a new flagshipto go along with AM3: its Phenom II X4 955 running at 3.2 GHz and equipped with the same 6 MB shared L3 cache.

There's really not much to add that hasn't already been said about the Phenom II family, but to recap, the chip is armed with 64 KB each of L1 data and instruction cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and again, that 6 MB shared L3.

An integrated 128-bit DDR2/DDR3 memory controller (running at 2 GHz by default) interfaces with a pair of 64-bit channels. If you're using the X4 955 on an AM2+ motherboard, speeds of up to DDR2-1066 are officially available. If you're using it on an AM3 platform, you can install DDR3-1333, though it should be noted that only one module per channel works at that frequency. And whereas AMD shipped its Phenom II X4 940 with a 1,800 MHz HyperTransport link, the X4 955 accelerates that to 2 GHz--just like the other AM3 processors. 

The chip's nominal voltage range is .875V-1.5V, similar to the Phenom II X4 940, so we won't be surprised if power consumption falls within the previous flagship's ballpark. In fact, this new processor also sports a 125W TDP.

Socket AM3/AM2+ Processors
Model

Frequency

L3 Cache

Voltage

Model #’s

Socket

Phenom II X4 955 BE
3.2 GHz
6 MB
0.875-1.5V
Tray: HDZ955FBK4DGI;
PIB: HDZ955FBGIBOX
AM3, AM2+, AM2
Phenom II X4 945
3.0 GHz
6 MB
0.875-1.5V
Tray: HDX945FBK4DGI;
PIB: HDX945FBGIBOX
AM3, AM2+, AM2
Phenom II X4 910

2.6 GHz

6 MB

0.875-1.425V 

Tray: HDX910WFK4DGI

AM3, AM2+, AM2

Phenom II X4 810

2.6 GHz

4 MB

0.875-1.425V 

Tray: HDX810WFK4FGI; PIB: HDX810WFGIBOX

AM3, AM2+, AM2

Phenom II X4 805

2.5 GHz

4 MB

0.875-1.425V 

Tray: HDX805WFK4FGI

AM3, AM2+, AM2

Phenom II X3 720 BE

2.8 GHz

6 MB

0.850-1.425V 

Tray: HDZ720WFK3DGI; PIB: HDZ720WFGIBOX

AM3, AM2+, AM2

Phenom II X3 710

2.6 GHz

6 MB

0.875-1.425V 

Tray: HDX710WFK3DGI; PIB: HDX710WFGIBOX

AM3, AM2+, AM2

Phenom II X4 940 BE

3.0 GHz

6 MB

0.875-1.5V

Tray: HDZ940XCJ4DGI; PIB: HDZ940XCGIBOX

AM2+, AM2

Phenom II X4 920

2.8 GHz

6 MB

0.875-1.5V

Tray: HDX920XCJ4DGI; PIB: HDX920XCGIBOX

AM2+, AM2


The New Dragon: Pictures, Prices, And Comparisons

I’ve mentioned this before, but there was a time when AMD shunned the platform concept, preferring to focus on processors alone. I was critical of that approach back then and recognized the value of Intel’s CPU, chipset, motherboard, networking, storage, etc. approach, especially in the workplace. System builders favored it, and for good reason given centralized support.

Now AMD is fully on the platform bandwagon and we think the decision is a good one. In fact, the company is thumping its platform drum so hard that it’s difficult to believe it ever wanted anything different. First, it was Spider. Then AMD wanted to talk Dragon. And now the company is fawning over this “Dragon Update.”

Do what you will with the marketing terminology—it all boils down to a hardware combination. Dragon 1.0 consisted of a Phenom II, a Radeon HD 4800-series GPU, and a 7-series chipset. All of those components are still in play.

This update nudges us up 200 MHz with a flagship running at 3.2 GHz. It gives us the option of adopting DDR3 memory and a Socket AM3 interface. It’s available alongside ATI’s new Radeon HD 4890 graphics card. And it includes a new processor-in-box reference cooling solution, which is just a tad smaller than its predecessor.

Old PIB 'sink on the left, new heatsink on the right.

Do all of those “upgrades” emerge at comparable prices to hardware at the time of AMD’s Dragon launch in January? It’s a close match-up. We originally calculated a processor/motherboard/DDR2 memory package at roughly $450 ($275 for the X4 940, $130 for an inexpensive 790GX motherboard, and $50 for 4 GB of DDR2). Today’s update can be done for roughly the same price. The X4 955 is launching at $245, but the cost savings is consumed by the 4 GB of DDR3.

We just so happen to be using a pricier motherboard in our evaluation here: Asus’ $190 M4A79T Deluxe, based on the 790FX, rather than the 790GX chipset.

Share:
15
Comments
Read more
X
Submit

Comments
Read the comments on the forums
jennyh 23/04/2009 12:05
Hide
-1+

I can barely believe this article started off talking about the Dragon platform, then you go and use a 280gtx in the gaming benchmarks even though you know it throws up varying results with the Nehalems.

Here's an idea - use the Dragon platform. I'm sure you can find a 4890 or 4870 X2 lying around somewhere.

mi1ez 23/04/2009 12:29
Hide
-0+

I wouldn't even have spotted that. Good point well made.

It's St George's day, I want a dragon! :D

mi1ez 23/04/2009 12:31
Hide
-0+

Quote :
The newest version of WinRAR, on the other hand, follows after previous iterations and utilizes as many threads as you can throw at it—hence the Core i7’s commanding victory.

More odd is the X3 720s parity with AMD’s X4 940—a CPU that is both 200 MHz faster and one core stronger. Nevertheless, AMD shows very well against Intel’s Core 2 Quad Q9550, besting it by 16 seconds in our 334 MB compression routine.

Does this not suggest memory is critical?

Helloworld_98 23/04/2009 17:17
Hide
-1+

would've liked to seen benchmarks with a 720 with unlocked core and overclocked to 3.2ghz involved so we can guage value for money better.

tstebbens 23/04/2009 17:24
Hide
-1+

Quote :We’re still not looking at a Core i7-killer (or even competitor) here. After all, AMD’s fastest offering isn’t able to match even the slowest i7 chip, unless you count gaming, where most of these quad-core chips perform so similarly that it isn’t worth factoring in the tenths of a frame.


These are enthusiast parts and therefore primarily used in gaming machines.

I don't know of anyone who sits at their computer all day doing number crunching tasks (were the i7 excels) who cares about a 20% difference in execution time (you go for a coffee / watch TV / play a game / "play" ;) with your girlfriend) and miss the end of the run anyway; you don't sit there staring at a progress bar until it finishes.

So basically, unless you have a very specific application (you're a video editor for instance), what's the point in paying the 3x - 4x price premium for an i7 over an AMD? If you do, you're a mug - especially if the only reason is to brag you've got a faster machine.

wikd_wizz 23/04/2009 21:55
Hide
-2+

So basically, unless you have a very specific application (you're a video editor for instance), what's the point in paying the 3x - 4x price premium for an i7 over an AMD? If you do, you're a mug - especially if the only reason is to brag you've got a faster machine.

Absolutely right. AMD is offering best buck for money here. Thinking selling my Core2Duo 6600 and going for Phenom II 955.

Anonymous 24/04/2009 18:16
Hide
-0+

Why you don't use DDR3 1600MHz CL7 ???
Who will buy DDR3 1600MHz with CL6 ?

Thorak 06/05/2009 12:52
Hide
-1+

An overclocked X3 720 its a steal.
Superb value for money

Thorak 06/05/2009 12:55
Hide
-0+

An overclocked X3 720 BE its a steal.
Value for money cant get any better than this

Thorak 06/05/2009 12:55
Hide
-0+

An overclocked X3 720 BE its a steal.
Value for money cant get any better than this

Thorak 06/05/2009 12:55
Hide
-0+

An overclocked X3 720 BE its a steal.
Value for money cant get any better than this

diggos 15/05/2009 11:30
Hide
-0+

Quote :We’re still not looking at a Core i7-killer (or even competitor) here. After all, AMD’s fastest offering isn’t able to match even the slowest i7 chip, unless you count gaming, where most of these quad-core chips perform so similarly that it isn’t worth factoring in the tenths of a frame
.

I`m looking to build myself an i7 rig or AMD Phenom II one. What I`m looking at, are video conversions and lots of multitasking apps. It will take me a while to complete that, partly because I`m still saving for it, partly because I still don`t know if it`s worth extra 2000$ for i7 965 setup. And reading this article, I`m more confused than before.

Clearly i7 965 trashes amd in any test, but for what I need, it seems that 955 PhenomII will do just fine.......financially, I cannot afford another upgrade anytime soon....

So...what I really want? A super fast, future proof i7 chip or just a fast quad that will do for now??? I don`t know....I think I`ll stick wit my dual core for the next couple of years, cos I`m too confused..........

greatgooglymugly 21/05/2009 18:29
Hide
-0+

Picture of the heatsinks seems to be reversed in the pic describing the reduction in size of the new heastsink.

luke904 18/06/2009 02:33
Hide
-0+

the 955 is a better processor than the i7 920 simply because of price, its like $50 cheaper, generally plays games better, and is almost as fast in every other area.
another thing to note: motherboards for intel are more expensive than amd ones.

Anonymous 25/06/2009 05:28
Hide
-0+

bueno con una combinacion de un phenom II 955BE 16gb de DDR3-1333 pc3-10500 y cuatro targetas de graficas Ati Radeon HD4890 en un mother MSI
790FX-GD70 y cuatro discos Seagate de 500GB funcionan mejor en graficos que cualquier core i7 a la misma velocida ya que los board con chips intel solo pueden tener 3 targetas de video.

Best offers

Newsletters


OK