AMD's Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition

by Anand Lal Shimpi on 8/13/2009 12:00 AM EST
POST A COMMENT

56 Comments

Back to Article

  • andrenb91 - Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - link

    amd's only hope to beat the i7s is the istambul core, if it brings istambul to the desktop market, I guess this future cpu can beat some high-end i7 processors, and after some revisions on the deneb core, amd will place it to ''fight'' the i5s leaving the athlon x4 playing against the i3s, but most denebs must be at 95W to be efficient against i5. of course this strategy depends if amd is economically capaple of putting a 300mm squared die in the desktop market...deneb is already too large to compete against the i7!
    Reply
  • Denithor - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link

    You measured performance in video encoding and then power consumption under the same test. Why not take the obvious next step to calculate performance/watt and post those results?

    And I was quite disappointed to see that you posted only about half of each CPU list on each of those charts - a few chips overlap but many do not so we cannot even do the calculation for ourselves except in less than half the cases.
    Reply
  • - Monday, August 17, 2009 - link


    Two things : Intel's SSE extentions are used by everyone, and should be the difference in some of these tests.



    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=719">http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=719

    The other disturbing thing is the FarCry benchmark, the writer:

    FarCry 2 is another example of a title well optimized for Intel's architectures and thus we see that the 965BE can't even win against its Q9550 competition. Thankfully for AMD, I do not believe FarCry 2 is representative of the majority of titles on the market.

    I believe this is an example of how SSE extentions deliver; but looking at the game benchmark data closer, we see that all cpu's are comparatively the same even the i7's vs Intel Core ll. Most, if not all vendors optimize in Intels favor

    asH
    Reply
  • - Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - link

    Note the extention differences between the two designs-

    Phenom ll X4 945
    Processor core Deneb
    Core stepping C2
    Manufacturing process 0.045 micron SOI
    758 million transistors
    Die size 243 mm2
    Data width 64 bit
    Number of cores 4
    Floating Point Unit Integrated
    Level 1 cache size ? 4 x 64 KB 2-way associative instruction caches
    4 x 64 KB 2-way associative data caches
    Level 2 cache size ? 4 x 512 KB 16-way associative caches
    Level 3 cache size 6 MB shared 48-way associative cache
    Virtual memory (TB) 256
    Features MMX
    3DNow!
    SSE
    SSE2
    SSE3
    SSE4a ?
    Advanced Bit Manipulation ?
    AMD64 technology ?
    AMD-V (virtualization) technology
    Enhanced Virus Protection ?

    Low power features Cool'n'Quiet 3.0
    CoolCore Technology ?
    Dual Dynamic Power Management ?
    Core C1 and C1E states
    Package S0, S1, S3, S4 and S5 states

    On-chip peripherals Integrated 144-bit DDR2 Memory Controller
    HyperTransport 3 technology

    -----------------------------------------

    Type CPU / Microprocessor
    Family Intel Core i7
    Model number ? I7-920
    CPU part number AT80601000741AA (Q1CM, Q1H7, SLBCH, SLBEJ)
    Box part numbers BX80601920 (SLBCH, SLBEJ)
    BXC80601920 (SLBCH, SLBEJ)
    Frequency (MHz) ? 2667
    Bus speed (MHz) ? 2400 MHz QPI
    Package 1366-land Flip-Chip Land Grid Array (FC-LGA8)
    Socket Socket 1366 (LGA1366)
    Introduction date Nov 17, 2008
    Price at introduction $284

    Architecture / Microarchitecture
    Processor core Bloomfield
    Core steppings C0 (SLBCH)
    D0 (Q1H7, SLBEJ)
    Manufacturing process 0.045 micron Hi-k metal gate technology
    731 million transistors
    Die size 263 mm2
    Data width 64 bit
    Number of cores 4
    Floating Point Unit Integrated
    Level 1 cache size ? 4 x 32 KB instruction caches
    4 x 32 KB data caches
    Level 2 cache size ? 4 x 256 KB
    Level 3 cache size Inclusive shared 8 MB cache
    Features MMX instruction set
    SSE
    SSE2
    SSE3
    Supplemental SSE3
    SSE4.1 ?
    SSE4.2 ?
    EM64T technology ?
    Hyper-Threading technology
    Turbo Boost technology ?
    Virtualization technology
    Execute Disable bit ?

    Low power features Thread C1, C3 and C6 states
    Core C1, C3 and C6 states
    Package C3 and C6 states
    SpeedStep technology ?

    On-chip peripherals Integrated triple-channel DDR3 SDRAM Memory controller
    Quick Path Interconnect



    Reply
  • - Tuesday, August 18, 2009 - link


    Type CPU / Microprocessor
    Family Intel Core 2 Quad
    Model number ? Q9650
    CPU part number AT80569PJ080N (QHGF, SLB8W)
    Box part numbers BX80569Q9650 (SLB8W)
    BXC80569Q9650 (SLB8W)
    Frequency (MHz) ? 3000
    Bus speed (MHz) ? 1333
    Clock multiplier ? 9
    Package 775-land Flip-Chip Land Grid Array (FC-LGA8)
    1.48" x 1.48" (3.75 cm x 3.75 cm)
    Socket Socket 775 (LGA775)
    Introduction date Aug 10, 2008
    Price at introduction $530

    Architecture / Microarchitecture
    Processor core Yorkfield
    Core stepping E0 (QHGF, SLB8W)
    Manufacturing process 0.045 micron
    Data width 64 bit
    Number of cores 4
    Floating Point Unit Integrated
    Level 1 cache size ? 4 x 32 KB instruction caches
    4 x 32 KB data caches
    Level 2 cache size ? 2 x 6 MB 12-way set associative caches (each L2 cache is shared between 2 cores)
    Features MMX instruction set
    SSE
    SSE2
    SSE3
    Supplemental SSE3
    EM64T technology ?
    Virtualization Technology
    Execute Disable Bit technology ?
    SSE4.1 ?
    Trusted Execution technology

    Low power features Enhanced SpeedStep technology ?
    Stop Grant state ?
    Halt state
    Extended Halt state
    Extended Stop Grant State
    Sleep state ?
    Deep Sleep state ?
    Deeper Sleep state ?


    http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_2/Intel-Core%20...">http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_2/In...BX80569Q...
    Reply
  • - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Intel's biggest (only?) advantage is hyperthreading; realize Windows 7 had to be optimized (how much more code?)for hyperthreading..how will Intel's i7's react in an openCL, CPUGPU environment (WARP) compared to Phenoms II's and an ATI graphics card, is it cost efficient(less code) and more efficient (faster) to go with CPUGPU over hyper..Will multicores do away with hyperthreading? These current comparisons on vista or XP do not necessary reflect comparisons on Windows 7 or DirectX 11. staytuned Reply
  • - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    I would also love my excel spreadsheets to have the advantage of CPUGPU...Photoshop too Reply
  • - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    oh yeah, Intels game plan to fight AMD's CPUGPU concept-

    a)license the SLI technology from Nvidia for Nehelam
    b)get Microsoft to optimise Windows 7 for hyperthreading (sidebar-Intel pushes Windows 7 for corporate upgrades- can you say payoff))

    innovative genius

    but in reality they will probably make sure this great technological concept dies, thereby assuring comp's remain in the dark ages for another 10 years
    Reply
  • ash9 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    "Now once you start throwing in background tasks and look at future titles being more threaded then the picture becomes a little more muddy"

    I dont understand where the writer is going with these conclusions. As CPUGPU or OpenCL begins to take hold, the old comparative model of simply looking at raw speed becomes obsolete, now, overall power can be reduced while concurrent events run parallel in multicores and GPU, thats is where AMD is heading. These comparisons with Vista may not be as eye opening as compared on Windows 7 or DirectX 11, this is where AMD planed to rock and roll from the start.
    Reply
  • GourdFreeMan - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    You are looking too far forward into the future for a product that is going to be used by consumers for the next 2-3 years. Yes, there is a general move among all vendors (AMD, nVIDIA and Intel) towards moving largely parallel computation onto GPUs, however you must keep in mind CUDA has been around for 2.5 years and Brook even longer than that, yet GPGPU has only found commercial consumer application in media encoding and Adobe Photoshop. To expect a sudden shift when DX11 is released as a commercial product as part of Windows 7 later this year is wishful thinking at best. Programmers require time to learn new skills, adopt new methodologies and experiment to determine what works more efficiently and what doesn't. That time will be measured in years, not months.

    If we restrict ourselves to the domain of PC gaming, then Anand's comments are accurate, if a little dated. Programmers have finally adopted multithreaded (CPU) development with a vengeance. Most new games are multithreaded, regardless of whether they are a console port or the rare instance of the dying breed of PC exclusives. The first dual core consumer CPUs were released more than 4 years ago. That should give you some idea of how agile PC games development actually is. We still don't have many titles with 64-bit executables despite how long ago 64-bit CPUs and operating systems were released.

    Finally, there remain open questions of where tasks belong and what to do with unused processing capability on the CPU and GPU. You can put physics on the GPU, but what about AI? Game logic? Branchy scripts written by content creators as opposed to programmers? You can use your unused GPU cycles to do more graphically or at a higher frame rate, but can't you also find more tasks for your CPU that will contribute to gameplay? World simulation and more complicated AI immediately spring to mind.
    Reply
  • ravaneli - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Price: in retail price comparison the 9550 is a little cheaper. Talking about deals, my microcenter had about a hundred of them in stock at $169 each.

    Performance, even at stock 2.83 ghz the 9550 will take on the 965. You can take a look at toms hardware for another set of results. They looked quite humiliating. The 9550 will however overclock to 4ghz even with stick cooler due to really low cpu voltage.

    All AMD did with this chip is change the multiplier for you. And charge you for that. Thank's, but I can do this myself in 2 mins.

    Not to say that 9550 is all that great, but I find the superiority fight with the 965 a quite tough one at least. How did u write it off so quickly and went quickly to comparing to i7. A lot of water will pass under the bridge before we see anything from AMD that competes with i7. Keep you comments about price of platform. It's not like you pay more money for the same product. You pay more for memory BUT YOU DO HAVE FASTER MEMORY, DONT YOU?? And read around, reliable OC motherboards under 200 are not rare any more.
    Reply
  • OblivionLord - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    I dont understand why you people are comparing newer intel chips such as the i5 and i7 to the 955 and 965 when the AMD chips arent even in the same league as the i7/i5. Infact the 955 and 965 has worse power efficiency than Yorksfield chips. To be blunt, Anandtech said that in a 64bit Windows environment the 965 couldn't pass 4ghz. At stock speed the 3.4ghz processor has a stock voltage of 1.4v. That's almost on par with Kentsfield quad power requirement. My 4.0ghz Q9550 oc'ed only needs 1.3625v and that's oc'ed compared to the 965's 1.4v at stock 3.4ghz which is insane. When my chip is at 3.8ghz I set the vcore to 1.3265. That's still 400mhz more than the 965 at stock which needs 1.4v.

    There is nothing that can tell me that Phenom 2 is anywhere comparable with anything past Yorksfield when it simply isn't.

    Reply
  • IKeelU - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Keep in mind that price is what we use to compare one processor to another. I don't think anyone is disputing that the I7 is a more technologically "advanced" microprocessor, but my wallet doesn't really care about that, and neither do OEMs I think. Ultimately, the TDP is something you should take into account when determining the overall cost of ownership. This is something that is difficult to evaluate objectively because everyone has different usage patterns, and the cost of energy varies from place to place. So we must evaluate based on a more spatially-constant cost, which is the purchase price. Reply
  • Nfarce - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Exactly. It is not Intel's fault that AMD has been asleep at the switch for several years now and reduced to rehashes of previous architectures. I want to see AMD keep Intel on its toes, but nothing from them currently makes me want to give up staying with Intel. And the way the future road map looks from Intel, I don't see that changing any time soon. Reply
  • arbiter378 - Friday, November 06, 2009 - link

    Your wrong, it is intel's fault. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/ICT/intel....">http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/ICT/intel.... Reply
  • Nfarce - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Those chips are certainly much more popular than the E8200, which is discontinued now most likely due to low sales. Besides, I think a 3.16GHz or 3.33GHz Wolfdale is more in line with the rest of the upper spectrum chips than one running at 2.66GHz.

    What would really be cool is a mass overclock comparison (on air) for the top 10 chips listed here. That would more in line reflect real world users here as well. Let's go with a head to head AMD vs. Intel overclock comparison!
    Reply
  • haplo602 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    so we have a new top end AMD cpu. the benchmarks are about what I expected them to be.

    AMD is nearing the limit of current Phenom II technology. They should introduce something new and better soon after i5 hits the streets or they are loosing on almost all fronts to Intel.
    Reply
  • brybir - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    I did notice on newegg that AMD is releasing some of its Phenom II's with lower TDP.

    They have a Phenom II 945 that was rated at 125WTDP now with the same processor just rated at 95W TDP.

    I figure they will goose the clock speed a bit more if they can and continue to work on getting their power consumption lowered on the rest of their line so by the time their new processors come out the Phenom II's can pull up low power budget duty.
    Reply
  • Taft12 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    I was going to mention this new part from AMD as well (945 95W edition). Anand you would do well to draw attention to it as well where you talk about AMD's current product lineup. This is a more interesting and notable introduction to me than this 140W behemoth.

    I was surprised to see the 965 only consumes 3W more at load than the 955BE however. Yes it draws the highest power on the chart, but only just barely.
    Reply
  • werfu - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    What AMD needs is a way to improve performance per clock, that's it, either K11 or something new. There's no way they'll be able to scale much past the 4Ghz point. Imagine the boost they would get, if they could provide 10% more clock efficiency, at the clock they are currently that would be a huge boost. They also need to improve the IMC. Going for 4 memory stick with AMD for now is a no go if you want to have high ram speed. Memory bandwidth is definitely a huge Intel advantage. And something like Hyperthread could be nice too. Reply
  • TheHolyLancer - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    uncore? isnt this HTT?

    Reply
  • medi01 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    "The problem with the $245 price point that AMD’s flagship sells at is one of positioning. It is dangerously close to the $284 price of a Core i7 920, which is generally a faster chip."

    Sorry, but shouldn't you also include motherboard price into calculation?
    Reply
  • C'DaleRider - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Well, really depends upon where you buy your parts from, doesn't it?

    Given that I have a MicroCenter and Fry's handy, the price for Intel's Core i7 cpu is $200. Combine that with an inexpensive X58 motherboard, like the MSI X58M, that has gotten quite good reviews for what it is, retails for $170.

    That gives a $370 price for mb and cpu to move to i7....cost of DDR3 memory is a wash due to both platforms requiring it.

    Of course, for those that depend upon Newegg's pricing for cpus, I feel for you....getting ripped off and all. Horrible how the 'Egg gouges on cpu prices these days.
    Reply
  • mohindar - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    How you can fit this processor onto socket LGA775, as mentioned in the final page... Reply
  • mohindar - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Sorry, wrong comment. Reply
  • Ben90 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    the SYS Mark 2007 Chart has the i7 920 @ 2.8 ghz... dont know if its on purpose or a typo Reply
  • MODEL3 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Well if it's true that Core i5 750 is going to launch at 6th of September at 196$,
    then the only option for AMD is to drop the price around what you suggested! (199$)
    Traditionally AMD official pricing translates around 5% lower (in actual street price) than Intel equivalent price
    (although in the recent years Intel had various questionable tactics like direct rebates to Retailers & to System Builders without a specific sales target - in the Europe region)

    I just hope that AMD is clever to understand, that in no way has to release a higher clocked model (975 3,6GHz, & 985 3,8GHz)
    before Intel release in Q1 2010 & in Q3 2010 the higher clocked models of i5 7XX (i5 760 2,8GHz & i5 770 2,93GHz) (if this is indeed the Intel future roadmap at 196$)

    Already some sites, that are with Intel side can easily fix the testing method, in order the Core i5 750 to appear more powerful than even a future 975 3,6GHz!

    The performance difference between Phenom II architecture & Nehalem architecture can have wide variation depending on the testing method!

    So if Intel wants, it can influence some sites to use specific methods to declare a Core i5 750 better than even a future 975 3,6GHz!

    What good will do to AMD to release a 975 at a 245$ in Q4 2009?

    Of cource AMD can price it at at 219$ (20$ difference with 965) but the whole situation is becoming depressing (they are fighting for +20$ for only a quarter until Q1 2010)

    Well, i guess they must make everything, in order to survive!
    Reply
  • GeorgeH - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    "AMD ought to get rid of the Xn suffix and just use simple model numbers at this point."

    I understand what you're saying, but I think it's the most straightforward processor naming scheme in a long time. You get the architecture, cores, relative speed, and locked/unlocked instantly. Unless AMD is going to stop selling 2 and 3 core chips and never offer more than 4 cores in the consumer space, I say keep the "Xn".

    Intel could really learn from AMD here; from your writeup on ix branding, I fully expect to be needing a decoder ring to figure out what a particular i3/i5/i7 really is.
    Reply
  • Drazick - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    It seems Intel advantage is more about optimization than much better processor, is this assumption true?

    Why isn't AMD put efforts into that?

    Thanks.
    Reply
  • Drazick - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    It should be easy to create some test scenarios and measure time.

    Many High End users use those kind of software.
    Reply
  • GourdFreeMan - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    The problem with benchmarking such packages is that depending on their target application they will not stress systems in a uniform way. Large matrix computation will likely be bound by memory bandwidth, while numeric computation at machine precision will hinge on FPU/SSE performance, and symbolic calculations will largely be bound by integer and branching performance. There isn't one uniform application that is representative of the needs of all scientists and engineers. Reply
  • XtAzY - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    I got my i7 920 for $200 at MicroCenter, much cheaper than $280 online deals! This AMD definately does not worth $245!! Reply
  • Griswold - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    And how much did you pay for the mobo and triple channel kit, dumbass? Reply
  • Exar3342 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    LOL, your the dumbass. :)

    6GB triple Channel - (Newegg) $85.00
    8GB dual channel (newegg) $95.00

    X58 MB - $165-175
    AM3 MB $85-120

    So you are talking a difference or $40-60, which if you can get the i7 at Microcenter (I was there last week and they had a ton) erases any price differences.
    Reply
  • Griswold - Saturday, August 15, 2009 - link

    Oh, lets look at the other article anand just put up, dumbass. Your shit doesnt quite add up... Reply
  • rhog - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Since when can you get a "good" x58 for lest than 200?

    I assume the 200 Bucks is a Mail in rebate price as well. I own 2 i7 920 great processor but hardly any faster at 3.6ghz than a 3.8ghz AMD 955 (at most 20%) which is in line with the "real" 100-125 Buck difference in cost. You can get a really nice Video card upgrade for that money. Don't forget the i7 920 never runs at 2.6ghz but always overclocks itself making it hard to do a good clock for clock comparison. The AMD 965 is better than Core2 and I doubt that the Core i5 will be faster than a Core i7 so they should compete well. Oh, and the Core i5 will overclock itself as well I here as much a 3 mults
    Reply
  • Roland00 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    The 200 dollar price isn't a mail in rebate, Micro Center a small computer store chain with about 30 stores market itself as a computer builder destination. They lose about 80 dollars on the processor to get you into the store and hoping to sell you enough other stuff (or assembly or warranties) to make up for their loss leader. Reply
  • steelicon - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    ROTFLMAOBBQ! Agreed! They get you in more ways than one, either it's the Processor itself, the Chipset, the DDR3 or all of them combined. Good thing we have another choice of platform! Reply
  • steelicon - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Will this run on an old AsuS Crosshair NV590A-SLI motherboard? I surely do hope so... Reply
  • grimpr - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    A really fast CPU, some minor tweaks to the K10 architecture and AMD stays "current", but the TDP's are ridiculous, 140W!!, for non existing gods sake! at 95W TDP and at the same price they would be excellent purchases to Intels Lynnfields. Clearly they are positioned at gamers,a crowd long lost to AMD. For uses other than happy jerking at intel compiler optimized benchmarks and moronic SuperPi's with analyzing miniscule FPS differences at games, the AMD Phenom II 905E at 65W TDP is an excellent buy. Something about the 45nm SOI manufacturing of this chips from AMD makes us wonder... Reply
  • FireSnake - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    You really need to grow up with this 140W and take a very close look at the power consumption table ;) Reply
  • JimmiG - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    It's not like the 140W TDP happened by accident or took AMD by surprise. 120 - 140W has been the target TDP for high-end CPUs for a long time. At this targeted TDP, AMD found a 3.4 GHz chip could be produced with decent yields. Some thought, research and design goes into the launch of a new CPU even if it's just a 200 MHz clockspeed bump.

    Don't worry, we'll not see a 160W or 180W CPU any time soon since 140W is a sensible target. Modern heatpipe coolers, mobos and PSUs have no trouble with them.

    If you think the difference between a 65W and a 140W CPU is too much, you must live in a very dark house or apartment since each light bulb consumes almost that entire difference.
    Reply
  • PrinceGaz - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link

    My lightbulbs consume between 12 and 20W of power each as I long since left behind inefficient incandescent bulbs. Reply
  • hyc - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    You guys are reading way too much into that 140W TDP spec. Look at the loaded power consumption results, the 965 is 223W vs 220W for the 955. So it's using a whopping 3W more than the 955, BFD.
    Reply
  • Griswold - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Some people seem to miss the T for Thermal in that figure indeed. Reply
  • hyc - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Ah, so which part of the Laws of Thermodynamics did you skip in school?

    You can't emit more power out (thermal or otherwise) than you took in.
    Reply
  • Griswold - Saturday, August 15, 2009 - link

    Thats not the point, dummy, its the maximum heat disssipation and that people mistake it for the power it draws from the wall plug. Got it? Reply
  • Eeqmcsq - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    "The 800 series Phenom II X4 is gone, as are the DDR2-only Phenom II X4 940 and 920. Most of the 700 series is also done with."

    I can understand AMD ending the 800 series and the AM2+ only Phenom IIs. But is this statement saying that AMD won't upgrade their X3 720 to a faster triple core, despite better yields? Many people have said that the 720 is AMD's best bang-for-the-buck value. I'd think that AMD would update this segment also.
    Reply
  • Ryun - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    My guess is AMD is working on positioning their lineup to fight against Lynnfield in the lower end. The triple cores are awesome, no doubt but look at what we've got now:

    1.) Phenom II 945 with a TDP of 95W, Phenom II 720 with a TDP of 95W. I'm willing to bet that AMD is planning to move an AMD 925 down to around the same price as the 720. OEMs will love the lower heat requirements and the lowered price. These are going to combat probably against the Core i5's without hyperthreading and from what I've seen I'd wager they'd do pretty well.

    2.) Last I checked there were still plans to make triple and quad cores of the athlon ii design. These are gonna go in the low end to combat against clarkdale I'd suppose. OEMs selling PCs are probably wanna going to get rid of their stockpile of DDR2 memory somehow so I'd surmise these would sell very well also.

    All and all I'd wager that AMD will do fine until Bulldozer releases as long as they a) Make sure they market these processors well to OEMs b) really ramp up their mobile lineup in the coming months

    Look at the 4800 series success afterall. Most people just don't care about the highend and if AMD can have competitive prices they should do well.
    Reply
  • Nalyk - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Is this just a straight clock bump on AMD's part from the 955 due to improved manufacturing? And if so why would consumers shell out another $50 if the head room is already there on the 955 I figure half the reason people buy the Black Editions is so they can play with the multiplier. Am I wrong?
    I suppose I can understand their need for cash, but I personally feel it difficult to justify shelling out another $50 for 200Mhz especially if the head room is there already on the same chip. Or by releasing this chip are they implying that there's even more head room on this 965?
    Reply
  • Eeqmcsq - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Page 6, char for "POV-Ray 3.73 beta 23 Ray Tracing Performance". Reply
  • Vozer - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Based on our preliminary results, I'd expect the race to be reasonably close between the 965 BE and the Core i5 750 but the i7 850 may prove to be the sweet spot at only $40 more.

    Core i7 850? :)
    Reply
  • jmke - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Yup, Core i7; All Nehalem CPUs with 8 threads are i7 series, those with 4 threads are i5 series; those without turboboost are i3
    http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/intel-core-...">http://www.madshrimps.be/vbulletin/f22/...870-850-...
    http://en.expreview.com/2009/08/11/a-simple-way-to...">http://en.expreview.com/2009/08/11/a-si...tinguish...
    Reply
  • Eeqmcsq - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link

    Er, sorry, page 5 Reply
  • michssxx - Saturday, December 11, 2010 - link

    Hi

    I'm new and I want to just say Hello.

    My nick is: http://www.25mbits.com">michssxx

    I hope to write many of posts in this forum...

    If it's wrong thread to say Hello, please move to correct one.
    Reply
  • ToeringsNthong - Saturday, January 22, 2011 - link

    One main problem i see with this review although its a good review is you should also include the SAME CLOCK SPEEDS! like example i'll just pick a RANDOM cpu like the q6600 you are comparing something at 2.4 ghz to something that's running at 3.4ghz that just don't make any sense whatsoever ! can you please explain how is that is a fair comparison?

    And dont try and say we don't over clock these! anyone with half a brain knows the q6600 can hit 3.4ghz without even breaking a sweat ! even with a crappy mobo ! I know this isn't a overclock review BUT STILL you should have included a fair comparison like hardocp does they always do a APPLES TO APPLES comparison.

    Second thing is you mention you don't know why intel still sells socket 775 cpus,i know why its because we are not all rich like you guys and cant afford a complete upgrade,

    Some of us still have 775 motherboards and don't have the money to run out and buy new motherboards and ddr3 ram,does that explain it to you?? Glad i could be of assistance.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now