bit-tech.net

AMD Phenom II X4 980 Black Edition Review

Comments 1 to 25 of 51

Reply
Jake123456 13th July 2011, 13:51 Quote
I maybe being a think git, and not seen it, but shouldn't it have a score at the end of it? That really helps me sum up if I should invest in it or not :{
SchizoFrog 13th July 2011, 13:54 Quote
"The 980 BE lacks grunt in all our benchmarks – even Intel’s inexpensive dual-core Core i3-2100 proved faster in some tests, and that was before we’d even overclocked the AMD CPU."

This doesn't make sense. Did you mean "...AFTER we'd even overclocked the AMD CPU" or "before we'd even overclocked the INTEL CPU"???
wst 13th July 2011, 13:56 Quote
Jake, from the looks of it you'll only want to invest in it if you can't afford to replace both the mobo and the cpu.
Lizard 13th July 2011, 13:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake123456
I maybe being a think git, and not seen it, but shouldn't it have a score at the end of it? That really helps me sum up if I should invest in it or not :{

Sorry Jake, you're not being thick :) We're being rubbish :(

The score box went AWOL and is currently being added in now.
Jake123456 13th July 2011, 14:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lizard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake123456
I maybe being a think git, and not seen it, but shouldn't it have a score at the end of it? That really helps me sum up if I should invest in it or not :{

Sorry Jake, you're not being thick :) We're being rubbish :(

The score box went AWOL and is currently being added in now.

You're not being rubbish, I'm to quick on the gun.
Technobod 13th July 2011, 14:03 Quote
Why are AMD wasting the resources of releasing yet another clock bump of a positively prehistoric chip when thy could be using them on bulldozer? come on AMD get on with it, the people you created all the hype in will likely be dead before they ever see one on a retailers shelves at this rate.
3lusive 13th July 2011, 14:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
"The 980 BE lacks grunt in all our benchmarks – even Intel’s inexpensive dual-core Core i3-2100 proved faster in some tests, and that was before we’d even overclocked the AMD CPU."

This doesn't make sense. Did you mean "...AFTER we'd even overclocked the AMD CPU" or "before we'd even overclocked the INTEL CPU"???

Yeah I noticed that too lol, they must have meant after theyd over-clocked the AMD chip
arcticstoat 13th July 2011, 14:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
This doesn't make sense. Did you mean "...AFTER we'd even overclocked the AMD CPU" or "before we'd even overclocked the INTEL CPU"???

It means the 2100 was faster than the AMD chip before we overclocked the latter - I've rephrased it slightly to make it clearer.
SchizoFrog 13th July 2011, 14:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcticstoat
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizoFrog
This doesn't make sense. Did you mean "...AFTER we'd even overclocked the AMD CPU" or "before we'd even overclocked the INTEL CPU"???

It means the 2100 was faster than the AMD chip before we overclocked the latter - I've rephrased it slightly to make it clearer.

Thanks. That is clearer now.
MrJay 13th July 2011, 14:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technobod
Why are AMD wasting the resources of releasing yet another clock bump of a positively prehistoric chip when thy could be using them on bulldozer? come on AMD get on with it, the people you created all the hype in will likely be dead before they ever see one on a retailers shelves at this rate.

I guess if you have a large stock of Phenom II's and you know you can still sell them, then why not?
I mean i know they are not anywhere close to being a competitive product but its better selling them for £140 than writing off a whole batch. Especialy as a clock increse would probably take very little modification.

Think you would have to be a bit mad or a fanboy to buy one at this late stage, but people still have to upgrade and no doubt there are a fair few users still rocking on AM2+ boards.

Im desparate for an upgrade to my Athlon II X 2 645 but i know with new release form AMD on the horizon and solid performance of Intel to fall back on if Bulldozer is a flop.

Im also limated to 95w TDP as im running a Mini ITX board so sepetember is make or brake for AMD in my eyes.

Its either gonna be a one of the many Intel ITX boards + a tasty i5

Or less likely an AM3+ ITX (havent seen any crop up yet) and a Bulldozer CPU.
dec 13th July 2011, 14:59 Quote
In as much as I understand AMD wanting to sell as many old chips as possible...I dont think it was worth being reviewed. (No offense BT just feels kind of odd to see a review of this)

Bulldozer oh Bulldozer where the F*** are you Bulldozer?
leveller 13th July 2011, 15:02 Quote
Were BT a bit generous with their 63%? From the charts and price I'd expect nearer 33% or lower ...
Blanx3_Bytex 13th July 2011, 15:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by leveller
Were BT a bit generous with their 63%? From the charts and price I'd expect nearer 33% or lower ...
30 %? Really? lets face it, its not THAT BAD, its just not very good in comparison with Intel products which are 2 lightyears ahead.
Action_Parsnip 13th July 2011, 15:25 Quote
Stand back a bit and look at how far AMDs 45nm progressed. Crappy old Deneb went form 3.0 to 3.7ghz, then the much larger Thuban came along and topped out at 3.2 ghz.

....hope Bulldozer evolves like this too!
leveller 13th July 2011, 15:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanx3_Bytex
30 %? Really? lets face it, its not THAT BAD, its just not very good in comparison with Intel products which are 2 lightyears ahead.

Exactly. BT said themselves for £20 more you can have Intel's i5-2500K. Mine runs cleanly with the Asus P8P67 board auto-overclocking the chip to 4.2ghz. Now look at those charts again and work out what you think the percentage should be. Unless I'm missing the point of the reviews, they aren't for charity are they? In which case I'd understand the charitable score ...

I must have missed something because the chip looks worthless ... sorry!
Pete J 13th July 2011, 15:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technobod
Why are AMD wasting the resources of releasing yet another clock bump of a positively prehistoric chip when thy could be using them on bulldozer?
Pretty much this. Intel have moved on three(?) generations whilst AMD still faff around with an outdated architecture that is rivalled by Intel's chips from 2006.

Still, maybe AMD will pull something out of the bag. After all, in the past, Nvidia was far ahead with the 8800 series, then got complacent and allowed ATI/AMD to catch up again (and at one point were actually overtaken). Having said that, Intel show no signs of slowing...
Action_Parsnip 13th July 2011, 16:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete J
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technobod
Why are AMD wasting the resources of releasing yet another clock bump of a positively prehistoric chip when thy could be using them on bulldozer?
Pretty much this. Intel have moved on three(?) generations whilst AMD still faff around with an outdated architecture that is rivalled by Intel's chips from 2006.

Still, maybe AMD will pull something out of the bag. After all, in the past, Nvidia was far ahead with the 8800 series, then got complacent and allowed ATI/AMD to catch up again (and at one point were actually overtaken). Having said that, Intel show no signs of slowing...

You imply there is some development costs associated with the 980. As far as I know, this isn't a new stepping, this is just a product of yields on an upward trend.
tonyd223 13th July 2011, 16:11 Quote
Gulp! OK, these figures make AMD's current offerings look pants. There is one glimmer of hope for this cpu that you've all missed - we all retire systems from being our main system, to being the PC for Dad, or the son, or for the HTPC. In that case, if you can remember, when Phenom was first released socket 939 demand for X2 4800 Athlons went through the roof as a way of prolonging the life of older systems - I still have a socket 939 X2 somewhere in the house (Ubuntu). Same thing for AM2 and AM3 - those systems are going to be retired very soon, and this chip (because some of the AM2 boards don't support X6 processors) is the last hurrah for keeping them alive...

Bet you see demand for these chips that'll surprise you - it only makes sense in this context
aLtikal 13th July 2011, 16:47 Quote
Think the 63% is way to generous.

50% tops!
Hustler 13th July 2011, 16:53 Quote
Of course anyone with any brains looking for a cheap, poweful upgrade to a dual core setup, would buy the Phenom II 955 which at only £85 is an absolute bargain and when easily overclocked to 3.8Ghz or more is good enough for any game out there, when partnered with a decent GPU...
Jipa 13th July 2011, 17:12 Quote
Really the best thing about this CPU is that it lowers the prices at the other end of the family of Quads. This, again, means that people who (accidentally?) bought Athlons in the first place can get a genuine upgrade on the cheap.

This is also nice, because I happen to have one and it OC's better than the 975 BE I also happen to have.. :) But yeah for new buyers it's such an irrelevant chip.
iajo 13th July 2011, 17:20 Quote
i cant see a reason to buy this chip sadly, im still running 939 so an upgrade is on the cards, the good thing with amd is that i can upgrade to an am3+ mobo and get a bargain 955 which will last me ages and then when i am ready i will be able to upgrade to bulldozer.

Thats where intel lets the side down imho, i nearly bought an i5760 last year then a couple of months later a sandy bridge 2500k destroys it for the same money only you have to upgrade the mobo aswell. Pretty much doubles the cost of upgrades.

Good thing with being a few gens behind is upgrades come cheaper and i can see a clear upgrade path rather than spending loads on systems that become obsolete fast I7 for example. Intel give great bang for the buck at the time of purchase but new sockets with every new chip and restricting ocing to premium chips is in bad taste.
tonyd223 13th July 2011, 17:37 Quote
iajo - can I have your 939 processor (if it's the rare 4800 X2) when you've finished with it?
Cei 13th July 2011, 17:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanx3_Bytex
Quote:
Originally Posted by leveller
Were BT a bit generous with their 63%? From the charts and price I'd expect nearer 33% or lower ...
30 %? Really? lets face it, its not THAT BAD, its just not very good in comparison with Intel products which are 2 lightyears ahead.

Surely the way you mark things is by comparing to other products in the market. Intel can't score over 100% after all, so if the AMD is way way behind, the score should be way way behind as well. It's a bad product at this point in time, compared to the competition right now.
leexgx 13th July 2011, 18:09 Quote
was Cnq turned off or more so C1e just off and CnQ on or both off, when tests was done as well

as i have had performance issues with the AMD cpu's (none Phenom 2's) just not there when CnQ on is on and more so when C1e is enabled (main one been disk subsystem operating slowly with C1e enabled )
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