AMD Phenom II X4, Intel Core 2 Quad
We wanted to include an Athlon II X4 at 2.8 GHz as well, but we couldn’t get a model 630 in time for this review. The only alternative would have been the 2.6 GHz Athlon II X4 620, which we did not want to overclock since doing so would also increase memory and system clock speeds. The main difference between Athlon II X4 and Phenom II X4 is L3 cache. You’ll find performance comparison between these two in this article: Athlon II or Phenom II: Does Your CPU Need L3 Cache? Keep in mind that Athlon II X4 is just a bit slower than Phenom II X4 when looking at the benchmark results later on.
AMD Phenom II X4 (Socket AM3)
The Phenom II X4 has been available for a while. You will find detailed information on the Phenom II X4 in the following articles:
AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE: Same Speed, Less Power
Athlon II or Phenom II: Does Your CPU Need L3 Cache?
Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Review
AMD Phenom II X4 955: Finally a Flagship
Phenom II X4 955: AMD’s Dragon Platform Evolves
The Phenom II X4 965 BE is the 3.4 GHz flagship, and will remain the fastest AMD chip until a possible 975 version at 3.6 GHz would take over in early 2010. Like all Phenom II X4 processors, it comes with four individual cores and a shared 6MB L3 cache. There is also an 800-series, which only has 4MB L3 cache. However, we decided to focus on the 900-series because of the small price difference. The entry-level model here is the 910, which runs at 2.6 GHz. Our 2.8 GHz clock speed equals the Phenom II X4 925.
Intel Core 2 Quad (LGA 775)
The Core 2 Quad is a veteran on the quad-core field, having been with us for roughly two years now. The Core 2 Quads differ from competing four-core designs, such as the Core i5/i7 and AMD Phenom X4 offerings, in that they are based on two dual-core dies, which Intel puts into one processor package. Although there has been criticism of this concept, it works well. Ultimately, the results are what counts.
We used a Core 2 Quad Q9550S, which has a nominal 2.83 GHz clock speed. We then reduced the front side bus speed by 3 MHz to 330 MHz for a 2.80 GHz effective clock speed.
Core 2 Quad is based on Intel’s LGA 775 platform, which is being replaced by the Nehalem-based LGA 1156 architecture. Intel’s new 32nm processor generation (Westmere), starting with the dual-core Core i5/i3 (Clarkdale), will be the engine behind this transition process. Therefore we recommend you go for an i-series platform, rather than Core 2, unless you find an incredibly good deal.
- 1 / 3
- Next
-
Latest CPU News
- 10/02 – CPU Performance Boosted 20% When CPU, GPU Collaborate
- 10/02 – Leaked Slide Shows Intel Haswell Set for March-June 2013
- 09/02 – $100,000 If You Can Prove Quantum Computers Impossible
- 09/02 – AMD Adds FM1 CPUs Athlon II X4 638 and Athlon II X4 641
- 08/02 – Raspberry Pi Scheduled to Launch This Month
It would be interesting to see compared systems at same price (probably would make sense if price included motherboard+processor).
As far as Gaming goes the results dont represent real life at all. At a resolution that someone with a CPU like the ones used there is really very little differance in performance at all. In fact the 965 would win some benchmarks at a sensable resolution.
Mactronix
what was wrong with the resolution shown i dont think to many people play at those res anymore with the current line up of monitors everyone has higher
doesn't the low resolutions push the game to be cpu bound and hence remove any chance of the gpu bottlenecking the result? hence the use of very low resolutions.
THG constantly manage to make AMD cpu's look a lot worse than they are don't they?
HINT : AMD already has a 2.8ghz cpu, USE THAT ONE INSTEAD OF DOWNCLOCKING THE FLAGSHIP YOU TARDS.
How much better a slant would this entire article have on AMD cpu's if they'd simply used a X4 925 instead of the X4 965?
SHEESH is it any wonder THG gets accusations of bias on every bloody article???
http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo/ [...] &Itemid=42
Please read this article before doing any more benchmarks on intel power consumption.
THG constantly manage to make AMD cpu's look a lot worse than they are don't they?HINT : AMD already has a 2.8ghz cpu, USE THAT ONE INSTEAD OF DOWNCLOCKING THE FLAGSHIP YOU TARDS.How much better a slant would this entire article have on AMD cpu's if they'd simply used a X4 925 instead of the X4 965?SHEESH is it any wonder THG gets accusations of bias on every bloody article???
THG and every website which shows the true state of CPU performance(i.e. that AMD are behind Intel) will always cop accusations of bias from AMD fanboys who are addicted to denying reality.
THG and every website which shows the true state of CPU performance(i.e. that AMD are behind Intel) will always cop accusations of bias from AMD fanboys who are addicted to denying reality.
Funny how even a massively underclocked Phenom II can still beat an i7 in most of the gaming benchmarks.
Funny how even a massively underclocked Phenom II can still beat an i7 in most of the gaming benchmarks.
In a GPU limited situation, it appears that the PhII can compete with the i7, but once that bottleneck is removed, then the disparity in performance between each processor becomes apparent.
In a GPU limited situation, it appears that the PhII can compete with the i7, but once that bottleneck is removed, then the disparity in performance between each processor becomes apparent.
A gtx260 gpu limited at 1280x800 on medium settings? I don't think so, no.
The i5 manages ok, it's just further proof of the i7's gaming failings - and this time you can't even use gpu limited as the excuse.
THG and every website which shows the true state of CPU performance(i.e. that AMD are behind Intel) will always cop accusations of bias from AMD fanboys who are addicted to denying reality.
Yes AMD are behind Intel when all around performance is taken into account but the thing Intel is up on is encoding etc. For everyday usage in the real world, that's gaming and the odd bit of encoding where 18 seconds difference doesn't matter to anyone AMD are totally in the race.
Low power consumption is nice but it isnt a reason to buy one over the other. The differance is exactly the same thing as buying a diesel car over a petrol one because the running costs are lower, that differance being nothing. The milage you need to do before the fuel costs start to out way the extra you paid is huge. Same as you would get to the point where you are buying a new PC before the low power consunption of the intel would make a differance over teh extra you paid for the hardware.
In fact im strongly looking at AMD for my next build.
Mactronix
i just find it funny how people consider the GTX 260 a weak GPU, but in terms of performance it's holding its own in the top 10 cards from nVidia(from what i can make out)
Also, the Phenom ii 965 isn't exactly miles behind the i7s, it's clearly slower than the I7s in many benchmarks which involve sheer number crunching muscle, but in gaming benchmarks, AMDs flagship cpu is on par with the I7 regardless of only using a Dual channel memory configuration.
I personally can't go above 1366x768 in resolution(using a 720p HDTV)
so its nice to see benchmarks done using 1280x1024
Exactly if you want to crunch numbers and worry about power usage then get an i5/i7
If you want a general purpose/gaming PC get an AMD CPU. At a decent resolution with a top end card gaming wise the 965 actually beats an i7 in some games.
Mactronix
Imagine what AMD could do with that Triple channel controller...
But more to the point, in the 10 years i've been using AMD CPUs
(From K6-III 400 > Duron 750 > Athlon xp 1800 > Athlon 64 2800(754) > AMD Athlon 64 3700(939) then to Phenom II x4 955) and i've noticed in benchmarking AMD have favoured 3D application performance since the end of the Super 7 Era, intel couldn't keep up with the athlon Slot A.
And as for pricing at the moment, you can't get a more ferocious CPU than the PII x4 965 for £135 (Retail boxed CPU)
A gtx260 gpu limited at 1280x800 on medium settings? I don't think so, no.The i5 manages ok, it's just further proof of the i7's gaming failings - and this time you can't even use gpu limited as the excuse.
The result for the i7 in that particular test seems a bit odd as it doesn't correspond to the results that Tom's got when they tested all four processors previously at 2.8Ghz with 4870x2's as the GPU
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/core [...] 672-9.html
So it does appear that the lack of GPU power distorted the results in AMD's favour for that one result(even though the i5-750 handily beat it), but with plenty of GPU grunt, of course the better CPU shines through.
The result for the i7 in that particular test seems a bit odd as it doesn't correspond to the results that Tom's got when they tested all four processors previously at 2.8Ghz with 4870x2's as the GPU
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/core [...] 672-9.html
So it does appear that the lack of GPU power distorted the results in AMD's favour for that one result(even though the i5-750 handily beat it), but with plenty of GPU grunt, of course the better CPU shines through.
Ye sure...what was it the i5 had over the i7 again? On one hand you claim the better cpu shines through with plenty of gpu grunt, but you can't explain why the i5 is scoring so much higher?
Face it, the i7 is a lemon of a gaming cpu.
Ye sure...what was it the i5 had over the i7 again? On one hand you claim the better cpu shines through with plenty of gpu grunt, but you can't explain why the i5 is scoring so much higher?
Face it, the i7 is a lemon of a gaming cpu.
There appears to be something wrong with that particular benchmark as you don't see those results anywhere else.
Besides the other Tom's link I showed you(which you obviously couldn't understand), you don't see that result on other sites.
Here The Tech Report using a GTX260 shows the i7 at stock speeds beating a 3.4Ghz Ph II in Left for Dead on averagey settings
http://techreport.com/articles.x/17545/7
No actually the lack of GPU power distorts things in Intels favour.
If this test was done with a 5850 the gaming results would be level across the board.
Mactronix
No actually the lack of GPU power distorts things in Intels favour.If this test was done with a 5850 the gaming results would be level across the board. Mactronix
Check out this review with a 4870x2, it does not produce the results you suggest.
No actually the lack of GPU power distorts things in Intels favour.If this test was done with a 5850 the gaming results would be level across the board. Mactronix
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/core [...] 31672.html
Check out this review with a 4870x2, it does not produce the results you suggest.