bit-tech.net

AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE C3 Review

Comments 1 to 25 of 34

Reply
Kyocera 4th November 2009, 09:29 Quote
The pages 6 and 7 have a grave mistake; the graphs are telling higher is better, the 920 is far behind the AMD, and the text reds that Intel wins. ????????????

It's good that I live in a littoral town; from all the seen performance on behalf of AMD I had to take a firm grasp on an anchor to not get blown away.
steveo_mcg 4th November 2009, 09:31 Quote
Also you've missed off the smiley which tells us whether to bother reading it or not ;)
Tokukachi 4th November 2009, 09:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyocera
The pages 6 and 7 have a grave mistake; the graphs are telling higher is better, the 920 is far behind the AMD, and the text reds that Intel wins. ????????????

No the graphs are correct, they do say.. lower is better :)
Kyocera 4th November 2009, 10:03 Quote
True; now I can see that lower is better.
Well, there are two possibilities: or there was a glitch somewhere or AMD sabotaged the graphs.
The last would in line with their marketing of the new 5000 cards (shooting competition at Nvidia).
javaman 4th November 2009, 10:05 Quote
Will the 955 be receiving a new stepping too? I still don't feel that the extra £20 or so is worth the few extra MHz. Tho if the 955 doesn't get the new stepping the 965 certainly looks the better buy
[USRF]Obiwan 4th November 2009, 10:33 Quote
The I750 seems to wins in all benches from the AMD quad core in the same price range.

The better choice would be to build a P55 upgrade for the same money but you get higher performance:
Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2 € 83,93
Intel Core i5 750 € 158,51
OCZ Gold Low Voltage OCZ3G1333LV4GK € 82,-
Total: € 324,44

AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition € 156,50
Gigabyte GA-MA790XT-UD4P € 101,-
Gold Low Voltage OCZ3G1333LV4GK € 82,-
Total: € 339,50

Seems AMD is useful if you are on a tight budget and want a good quad core processor, for example the x4 810 (118 euro)

AMD Phenom II X4 810 € 118,95
Asus M4A785TD-V EVO € 77,-
OCZ Gold Low Voltage OCZ3G1333LV4GK € 82,-
Total: € 277,95

Fact is, that the AMD 965 can't compete with the same priced Intel I750
Bindibadgi 4th November 2009, 10:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by javaman
Will the 955 be receiving a new stepping too? I still don't feel that the extra £20 or so is worth the few extra MHz. Tho if the 955 doesn't get the new stepping the 965 certainly looks the better buy

I honestly don't know. We were only told and given the 965 right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan
The I750 seems to wins in all benches from the AMD quad core in the same price range.

The better choice would be to build a P55 upgrade for the same money but you get higher performance:
Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2 € 83,93
Intel Core i5 750 € 158,51
OCZ Gold Low Voltage OCZ3G1333LV4GK € 82,-
Total: € 324,44

AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition € 156,50
Gigabyte GA-MA790XT-UD4P € 101,-
Gold Low Voltage OCZ3G1333LV4GK € 82,-
Total: € 339,50

Seems AMD is useful if you are on a tight budget and want a good quad core processor, for example the x4 810 (118 euro)

AMD Phenom II X4 810 € 118,95
Asus M4A785TD-V EVO € 77,-
OCZ Gold Low Voltage OCZ3G1333LV4GK € 82,-
Total: € 277,95

Fact is, that the AMD 965 can't compete with the same priced Intel I750

Your comparison is flawed considering you've put the CHEAPEST P55 board against a high priced 790FX. What about 785G?

The X4 810 is meh. I'd buy a Phenom II X2 550 if I wanted cheap. MHz before cores. If you need cores, you should get used to spending more money for a decent product, or find a second hand LGA775 chip.
okenobi 4th November 2009, 10:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
I'd buy a Phenom II X2 550 if I wanted cheap. MHz before cores. If you need cores, you should get used to spending more money for a decent product, or find a second hand LGA775 chip.

Funny you should say that, because I've been wondering why you put the Athlon in the cheap system and not a 550. Could you build something around a 550 with decent RAM and maybe a 5 series ATI that would play everything and do most everyday tasks?

I've been lurking here for months and with all the reading I've done, it really does seem like it's either cheap Phenom, or go all out and get a 920. Anything in the middle just seems too expensive given how little extra it is for i7.

This article, seems to confirm that viewpoint. Shame, coz I was really hoping for something exciting from AMD with this revision.
Kyocera 4th November 2009, 10:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi


The X4 810 is meh. I'd buy a Phenom II X2 550 if I wanted cheap. MHz before cores. If you need cores, you should get used to spending more money for a decent product, or find a second hand LGA775 chip.

Richard Swinburne is The Oracle for hardware.


http://forums.bit-tech.net/picture.php?albumid=545&pictureid=5886
Kyocera 4th November 2009, 10:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by okenobi
Funny you should say that, because I've been wondering why you put the Athlon in the cheap system and not a 550. Could you build something around a 550 with decent RAM and maybe a 5 series ATI that would play everything and do most everyday tasks?

I've been lurking here for months and with all the reading I've done, it really does seem like it's either cheap Phenom, or go all out and get a 920. Anything in the middle just seems too expensive given how little extra it is for i7.

This article, seems to confirm that viewpoint. Shame, coz I was really hoping for something exciting from AMD with this revision.

You can buy a i5 and save some 100GBP compared to a 920.
Is that not enough for you??
okenobi 4th November 2009, 11:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyocera
You can buy a i5 and save some 100GBP compared to a 920.
Is that not enough for you??

Not really, no. What's £100 when I can get a 550, cheap motherboard and 4gig for £200? That should do everything I need and be fairly overclockable.

i5 is £120 more and what have I gained? Yeah, it's quicker and it overclockers better. But by how much in real every day usage. Benches are one thing, but what would i5 do for me that the Phenom couldn't?

i7 on the other hand offers the possibility of being the next Q6600 and offers me 2gig more RAM, more memory bandwidth, and hyperthreading. When the gap is only £100, I see no point in i5.

When I read Bindi's post the other day about "wait for the new stepping, that's all I'm allowed to say", I was hoping this article might offer me something else to consider, but in a way it's simplified things. It seems go cheap, or go expensive, but don't bother fluffing about in the middle.

Maybe that's just me though?
dec 4th November 2009, 11:03 Quote
any word if C3 is going to be released for the 720 and 550?
okenobi 4th November 2009, 11:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dec
any word if C3 is going to be released for the 720 and 550?

Bit-tech have repeatedly said they haven't been told anything else by AMD.

I'm not saying this is gospel (clearly that would be ridiculous), but might be worth a look....

Clicky
javaman 4th November 2009, 11:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by okenobi
Funny you should say that, because I've been wondering why you put the Athlon in the cheap system and not a 550. Could you build something around a 550 with decent RAM and maybe a 5 series ATI that would play everything and do most everyday tasks?

I've been lurking here for months and with all the reading I've done, it really does seem like it's either cheap Phenom, or go all out and get a 920. Anything in the middle just seems too expensive given how little extra it is for i7.

This article, seems to confirm that viewpoint. Shame, coz I was really hoping for something exciting from AMD with this revision.

Theres a few articles, I think it was [h]ard who most recent done a cpu bottleneck labs. I wasn't really interested in the i5/i7 since I still have life in my AM2+ but the 810 performed meh at stock but overclocked seemed to get a nice performance boost. I have to say tho that this was in gaming which is mainly what I use my rig for, but due to 3d modeling and me spending most of my waking hours on a pc cause of uni, Im starting to think of that upgrade. Also, christmas and my bday is round the cornor =p Seems tho that AMD is let down by current boards and as we all know, AM2+ boards generally sucked for HTT overclocking especially the one in my sig.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dec
any word if C3 is going to be released for the 720 and 550?

doesn't seem unrealistic to me tbh. If cores fail or demand remains high enough there is a good chance some of the c3's might filter down.
Bindibadgi 4th November 2009, 11:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by okenobi
When I read Bindi's post the other day about "wait for the new stepping, that's all I'm allowed to say", I was hoping this article might offer me something else to consider, but in a way it's simplified things. It seems go cheap, or go expensive, but don't bother fluffing about in the middle.

I hope you understand I wasn't allowed to elaborate, but still wanted you to read this review to add it to your decision :)
okenobi 4th November 2009, 11:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
I hope you understand I wasn't allowed to elaborate, but still wanted you to read this review to add it to your decision :)

Of course, totally. I've worked with NDAs before and I know how it is. If you were dead set on going AM3 and wanted that chip, it's definitely worth making sure you get the C3. However, that doesn't really help me specifically!
mi1ez 4th November 2009, 11:42 Quote
Tom's must have a better chip, they got an extra 200MHz over C2

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/phenom-x4-965,review-31722-6.html
sandys 4th November 2009, 11:51 Quote
Whats the impact of running on of these in a DDR2 board? Is there a great performance loss? Seems a nice cheap chip to upgrade my original phenom. I assume these still run in AM2+ boards? Moving to another setup involves expensive SLI mobo, don't really want to bother if the impact is only something like 5% in real usage terms.
[USRF]Obiwan 4th November 2009, 11:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi

Your comparison is flawed considering you've put the CHEAPEST P55 board against a high priced 790FX. What about 785G?

Thats not the point, I could throw in the Asus evo (77 euro) and then the I750 would still outperform the 965. Besides that the board of choice is not HIGH priced nor is it the Cheapest, its one of the cheap ones. Or else I would have chosen the MSI 790FX-GD70 or the Asus Crosshair III Formula. I just put in comparable boards in features and price range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi

The X4 810 is meh. I'd buy a Phenom II X2 550 if I wanted cheap. MHz before cores. If you need cores, you should get used to spending more money for a decent product, or find a second hand LGA775 chip.

I was talking about quad core comparison. There are no lower priced Intel quad cores then the I750 for the 1156 socket. Otherwise I would have chosen a Q8200, which is both cheaper and faster then the X4 810:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 € 107,49
MSI X48C Platinum € 90,-
OCZ Platinum Dual Channel OCZ2P10004GK € 61,50
Total :€ 258,99
Bindibadgi 4th November 2009, 11:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan
Thats not the point, I could throw in the Asus evo (77 euro) and then the I750 would still outperform the 965. Besides that the board of choice is not HIGH priced nor is it the Cheapest, its one of the cheap ones. Or else I would have chosen the MSI 790FX-GD70 or the Asus Crosshair III Formula. I just put in comparable boards in features and price range.

Generally high end 790FX boards are cheaper than high end P55 ones though. The i5 will out perform the 965 C3, I agree, however your comparative that it's better AND cheaper is not strictly true ;)
Quote:
I was talking about quad core comparison. There are no lower priced Intel quad cores then the I750 for the 1156 socket. Otherwise I would have chosen a Q8200, which is both cheaper and faster then the X4 810:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 € 107,49
MSI X48C Platinum € 90,-
OCZ Platinum Dual Channel OCZ2P10004GK € 61,50
Total :€ 258,99

The Q8200 is pretty naff as well. If I had to get a 775 I would buy an E7500 and run it at 4GHz.
[USRF]Obiwan 4th November 2009, 12:36 Quote
That is a duo core processor. I was comparing quad cores. ;)

what abouts video editing/encoding with premiere, after effects or Vegas or even DAW applications like Steinbeg Cubasse with a lot of VST instruments and effects?

I would like to see some benches of a Phenom II 955 or Intel duo E7500 VS above AMD/Intel quads with these kind of applications. Since sites do synthetic and game type benches the dual cores 'seems' to do better. Why not try using some of the above application where a quad core could be shining. Although I would probably use a Tyan Dual Xeon setup for a DAW.
[USRF]Obiwan 4th November 2009, 13:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mi1ez
Tom's must have a better chip, they got an extra 200MHz over C2

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/phenom-x4-965,review-31722-6.html

Well then tom got bad chips, what about over 6Ghz?
trig 4th November 2009, 14:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan
Thats not the point, I could throw in the Asus evo (77 euro) and then the I750 would still outperform the 965. Besides that the board of choice is not HIGH priced nor is it the Cheapest, its one of the cheap ones. Or else I would have chosen the MSI 790FX-GD70 or the Asus Crosshair III Formula. I just put in comparable boards in features and price range.

no, bindi's right. you tried to show that amd can't compete for more money. get a similar mobo and then you have an arguement to opt for amd because it is slightly cheaper. any other point you might have meant with that post doesn't really matter. it comes across as "i5 is better and cheaper", when that is not the case. amd isn't cheaper by much, but is cheaper...
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan
Well then tom got bad chips, what about over 6Ghz?

are you trying to be funny?

i doubt that's real, and if it is legit, my e8400 broke 10.2 seconds on the same test, on air...lolz
Quote:
Despite the fact Intel's processor is £5-10 more, both have appreciably similar motherboard cost and can use the same dual channel DDR3. So, for the cost of lunch, the performance difference is still considerable - especially when overclocked.

where's tesla effect, he'll get a kick out of the lunch stuff...
Bindibadgi 4th November 2009, 14:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF]Obiwan
That is a duo core processor. I was comparing quad cores. ;)

what abouts video editing/encoding with premiere, after effects or Vegas or even DAW applications like Steinbeg Cubasse with a lot of VST instruments and effects?

I would like to see some benches of a Phenom II 955 or Intel duo E7500 VS above AMD/Intel quads with these kind of applications. Since sites do synthetic and game type benches the dual cores 'seems' to do better. Why not try using some of the above application where a quad core could be shining. Although I would probably use a Tyan Dual Xeon setup for a DAW.

Because your Tyan board is a workstation-server using specific software. We always try to test with what people generally use, not specific scenarios, working to budgets not core-e-peen.
trig 4th November 2009, 15:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
Because your Tyan board is a workstation-server using specific software. We always try to test with what people generally use, not specific scenarios, working to budgets not core-e-peen.

i'm getting a man crush on bindi...;)
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums