funny that, i seem to remember people saying the same about intel not so long ago.......
this does have a whiff of deperation to it though, 7ghz under LN2? i'll believe that when i see it
Why is it the AMD fanboys always come out with that comment? AMD haven't put a good show for a very long time and apart from the odd low end bang per buck, they've done absolutely nothing.
By the look of this, they aren't going to be the No 1 choice either. Especially when in comparison with the i5 range which this will go up against since it's nowhere near an i7.
If you have a board that can take this, then go for the 955. If your board can't then wait for the i5 or go full hog and i7 for the best performance.
Owning both an i7 920 and a highly clocked Phenom II, I can conclusively say that the i7 runs a HELL of a lot hotter than the phenom II, even with the purportedly "lower" power consumption.
What's worse than a bad review/reviewer, are the people who believe what they read from just 1 review.
Just google this new processor. Plenty of other reviewers have easily reached 3.9ghz with just air cooling, with full stability. These guys here tried 1 mobo, didn't oc well, and now all of a sudden the proc is bad. *cough*
Get real bit-tech, try more than 1 mobo.........here's a link to get you zombies (some of you gullible readers) started:
Those are atleast 3 sources that reached 3.9ghz or HIGHER with just stock air. btw bit-tech, throwing more voltage at something is not the right way to go.
The review it self is worse than what you guys make the 965 BE out to be.
Originally Posted by crazyceo Why is it the AMD fanboys always come out with that comment? AMD haven't put a good show for a very long time and apart from the odd low end bang per buck, they've done absolutely nothing.
By the look of this, they aren't going to be the No 1 choice either. Especially when in comparison with the i5 range which this will go up against since it's nowhere near an i7.
If you have a board that can take this, then go for the 955. If your board can't then wait for the i5 or go full hog and i7 for the best performance.
Same old AMD, all mouth and no trousers.
well Im not trying to take sides and all but umm for the most part Intel honestly didnt have a decent CPU to offer the market that AMD couldnt match or beat until they released the C2D, then they finally had something to offer that out did AMDs offering and was able to retake the market. Also AMD is normally the company that tended to be more revolutionary then Intel or at least was the first to try something new and then Intel waited watched and then came out with their own variate, of course Im talking CPUs only here not all the other stuff that Intel has their fingers in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PandaMonster What's worse than a bad review/reviewer, are the people who believe what they read from just 1 review.
Just google this new processor. Plenty of other reviewers have easily reached 3.9ghz with just air cooling, with full stability. These guys here tried 1 mobo, didn't oc well, and now all of a sudden the proc is bad. *cough*
Get real bit-tech, try more than 1 mobo.........here's a link to get you zombies (some of you gullible readers) started:
Those are atleast 3 sources that reached 3.9ghz or HIGHER with just stock air. btw bit-tech, throwing more voltage at something is not the right way to go.
The review it self is worse than what you guys make the 965 BE out to be.
I do agree for the most part with you, concluding that a cpu is a letdown from testing with only one board isnt the way to go about concluding on something, they probably should have worded in the manner of with the hardware that we had at our disposal we were unable to match what AMD was claiming blah blah blah...
but ya this review could have used a bit more work on it and maybe a bit more time in testing/researching.
Originally Posted by phuzz Just as comparison, Prescott's quoted TDP was 84-89W (depending on the exact model).
Talking of apples and oranges, the P4 contempory AMD XP3000 consumed only 67w. So you can see why people are comparing the Ph II to the P4.
And the P4 EE @ 3.7 had a TDP of 115w, so a quad @ 3.4 and 140w isn't so extreme.
Edit: Just to be fair, I have a FX-55 @ 2.6 that sucks down a dizzy 104w.
Other reviews I've read are saying that the power consumption isn't much more than the PhII 955, so there may be some chip variation at work. AMD and Intel have power consumption brackets, and AMD CPUs fit into 45/65/95/125/140w, so if it used 126w i would be classed as a 140w CPU. AMD will probably release a 125w 965 later.
Originally Posted by PandaMonster What's worse than a bad review/reviewer, are the people who believe what they read from just 1 review.
Just google this new processor. Plenty of other reviewers have easily reached 3.9ghz with just air cooling, with full stability. These guys here tried 1 mobo, didn't oc well, and now all of a sudden the proc is bad. *cough*
Get real bit-tech, try more than 1 mobo.........here's a link to get you zombies (some of you gullible readers) started:
Those are atleast 3 sources that reached 3.9ghz or HIGHER with just stock air. btw bit-tech, throwing more voltage at something is not the right way to go.
The review it self is worse than what you guys make the 965 BE out to be.
lol...go back to w/e noob site you came from. they hit 3.92 ghz, on a tested board. mileage varies by the chip on oc'in, if you knew anything, you'd know that. and i am so impressed by sites that a)don't post cpu-z shots of their highest supposed stable oc, b)don't test that oc for stability other than "hey, it booted into windows and cpu-z runs...YAY!" c)compare it to a discontinued q9450 that if it were for sale today would probably go for around $200.
solid review. it's an oc'ed 955, and anyone who buys it/cries about a review that didn't jump for joy that amd has yet again released a "high-end" part that can only run with intel quads on a dead socket is brain dead.
Originally Posted by PandaMonster Just google this new processor. Plenty of other reviewers have easily reached 3.9ghz with just air cooling, with full stability. These guys here tried 1 mobo, didn't oc well, and now all of a sudden the proc is bad. *cough*
I can get 3.9-4GHz from our 955, explain to me why I need to spend more a 965 then? AMDs K10.5 process craps out at ~4GHz on air, unless you're very lucky.
We know the motherboard can do more than what we got and we certainly won't OC on 32-bit. Who TF uses 32-bit these days?
Just google this new processor. Plenty of other reviewers have easily reached 3.9ghz with just air cooling, with full stability. These guys here tried 1 mobo, didn't oc well, and now all of a sudden the proc is bad. *cough*
Hold your horses and think about it for a second. Trying a second motherboard isn't going to help if it's a bad chip especially since they know the motherboard can reach those numbers.
Also, like you said people need to read multiple reviews; it wouldn't be very helpful if Bit-tech turned around and said "Well we had a crap experience with the chip but we read [insert other site name here]'s review and they gave their chip a 10/10 so we're obviously wrong so we're going to give it a 11/10. AMD must have deliberately given us the worst chip they've made."
The point of multiple reviewers is to: A.) cater to different tastes and B.) to represent different experiences with the product. If bit-tech isn't allowed to give their honest opinions on the product then what's the point of them reviewing it in the first place?
Yes it's easy to do a proper search using Bing that will find some nut who gives this CPU the thumbs up.
Fact is, this site and it's sister mag Custom PC are some of the most trusted reviewers in this industry. They are not going to dump on something without good reason.
The only reason I can find for this chip to be rated down is that it's not worth the money pure and simple. And I do give Bit-Tech the props for admitting it...
I would'nt recommend this CPU (phenom II X4 965 BE) to any one due to it's poor performance and overclocking ability compared to other same range CPU's come from intel! I think it's better for AMD to focus more on it's Graphics card rather than CPU market where intel is the best vendor with it's fast, efficient and overclockable! CPUs with very very low power comsumption! I have already bought an ATI HD 5770 and it's a great GPU for money! buying a core i5 760 for just more 20$ will be the better option! follow this link and read all the review pages to understand what I am talking about:!! http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/09/08/intel-core-i5-and-i7-lynnfield-cpu-review/1
Comments 26 to 39 of 39
ReplyWhy is it the AMD fanboys always come out with that comment? AMD haven't put a good show for a very long time and apart from the odd low end bang per buck, they've done absolutely nothing.
By the look of this, they aren't going to be the No 1 choice either. Especially when in comparison with the i5 range which this will go up against since it's nowhere near an i7.
If you have a board that can take this, then go for the 955. If your board can't then wait for the i5 or go full hog and i7 for the best performance.
Same old AMD, all mouth and no trousers.
Just google this new processor. Plenty of other reviewers have easily reached 3.9ghz with just air cooling, with full stability. These guys here tried 1 mobo, didn't oc well, and now all of a sudden the proc is bad. *cough*
Get real bit-tech, try more than 1 mobo.........here's a link to get you zombies (some of you gullible readers) started:
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=335&Itemid=63&limit=1&limitstart=2
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews.php?/cpu_mainboard/amd_phenom_ii_x4_965_be/7
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1037/14/
Those are atleast 3 sources that reached 3.9ghz or HIGHER with just stock air. btw bit-tech, throwing more voltage at something is not the right way to go.
The review it self is worse than what you guys make the 965 BE out to be.
well Im not trying to take sides and all but umm for the most part Intel honestly didnt have a decent CPU to offer the market that AMD couldnt match or beat until they released the C2D, then they finally had something to offer that out did AMDs offering and was able to retake the market. Also AMD is normally the company that tended to be more revolutionary then Intel or at least was the first to try something new and then Intel waited watched and then came out with their own variate, of course Im talking CPUs only here not all the other stuff that Intel has their fingers in.
I do agree for the most part with you, concluding that a cpu is a letdown from testing with only one board isnt the way to go about concluding on something, they probably should have worded in the manner of with the hardware that we had at our disposal we were unable to match what AMD was claiming blah blah blah...
but ya this review could have used a bit more work on it and maybe a bit more time in testing/researching.
Talking of apples and oranges, the P4 contempory AMD XP3000 consumed only 67w. So you can see why people are comparing the Ph II to the P4.
And the P4 EE @ 3.7 had a TDP of 115w, so a quad @ 3.4 and 140w isn't so extreme.
Edit: Just to be fair, I have a FX-55 @ 2.6 that sucks down a dizzy 104w.
Other reviews I've read are saying that the power consumption isn't much more than the PhII 955, so there may be some chip variation at work. AMD and Intel have power consumption brackets, and AMD CPUs fit into 45/65/95/125/140w, so if it used 126w i would be classed as a 140w CPU. AMD will probably release a 125w 965 later.
lol...go back to w/e noob site you came from. they hit 3.92 ghz, on a tested board. mileage varies by the chip on oc'in, if you knew anything, you'd know that. and i am so impressed by sites that a)don't post cpu-z shots of their highest supposed stable oc, b)don't test that oc for stability other than "hey, it booted into windows and cpu-z runs...YAY!" c)compare it to a discontinued q9450 that if it were for sale today would probably go for around $200.
solid review. it's an oc'ed 955, and anyone who buys it/cries about a review that didn't jump for joy that amd has yet again released a "high-end" part that can only run with intel quads on a dead socket is brain dead.
I can get 3.9-4GHz from our 955, explain to me why I need to spend more a 965 then? AMDs K10.5 process craps out at ~4GHz on air, unless you're very lucky.
We know the motherboard can do more than what we got and we certainly won't OC on 32-bit. Who TF uses 32-bit these days?
About 4GHz, or a tiny bit over that.
Hold your horses and think about it for a second. Trying a second motherboard isn't going to help if it's a bad chip especially since they know the motherboard can reach those numbers.
Also, like you said people need to read multiple reviews; it wouldn't be very helpful if Bit-tech turned around and said "Well we had a crap experience with the chip but we read [insert other site name here]'s review and they gave their chip a 10/10 so we're obviously wrong so we're going to give it a 11/10. AMD must have deliberately given us the worst chip they've made."
The point of multiple reviewers is to: A.) cater to different tastes and B.) to represent different experiences with the product. If bit-tech isn't allowed to give their honest opinions on the product then what's the point of them reviewing it in the first place?
Fact is, this site and it's sister mag Custom PC are some of the most trusted reviewers in this industry. They are not going to dump on something without good reason.
Think about that before you bad mouth this place.
:)
I do agree - as always we encourage a look across the industry, but bear in mind multiple regions have multiple prices that they work from too :)
I mean look at what Guru3D has become.
Thanks C!
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2009/09/08/intel-core-i5-and-i7-lynnfield-cpu-review/1
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums