AMD today unleashes their Dragon and though that might sound like a pun it's actually an AMD marketing phrase for the infrastructure that carries Phenom II an AMD 790 chipset based motherboard Radeon... More...
That it was one of the most in-depth cpu reviews i'v seen in a long while overall i'm very impressed its not that far off the i7 but in general the prices are good i guess the guys with AM2+ boards are going to have grin on there faces
http://www.techradar.com/news/compu...s/how-windows-vista-drags-core-i7-down-480468 Reviewer might want to take a look at this. The Core i7 performs almost the same as E8000 in gaming benchmarks. Because, Vista thinks Hyper Threading = 8 true cores, which mean if your games support 2 threads, it will run on 1 core, and 1 virtual core.
Performance between the i7 920 and the AMD 940 clock for clock isn't even close. ..............:biggun:
shh, go away intel fanboi, it depends on the situation, as if you read the review, it's true in some instances, and gets beaten by a long shot in many instances
If you look at the game benchmarks they are all virtually the same with a few fps difference here and there - and lets be honest, who cares if winrar takes 30 seconds longer to finish.. it's all about FPS. =d
come on now ,that's on a am2+ mobo with DDR2 and getting the performance that really great in my book..well done AMD,atleast it doesn't take a change of almost everything to get one unlike i7.
Erm, no. If game originally runs using 2 threads, i7 will run the game on 4 cores. 2 physical and 2 virtual, each attached to 1 physical core.
Sweet, reading the review right now. Maybe it gives me something to upgrade to ^^ Could upgrade my Phenom X4 9850 to a Phenom II X4 940
It looks as though this is the best bang for your buck quad core at 1600+ resolution. Were there no temp tests? And was there a comparison of power consumption that I missed?
powerhouse my a**. Its about as fast as my E6750 according the review at Tomshardware. Think AMD heading the way of the Dodo.
LOL you said, tom's hardware. IMO there just as reputable as Fudzilla or the Inquirer. Reguardless for there price range, and decent overclocks they look like good bang for the buck.
Well i have to say Hilbert is also a bit exaggerating the Hyperthreading impact (which on average gives -1 to 1% boost across multimedia, math, professional, and game benchmarks). So Intel's HTT isn't really that great. Turbo Boost is, since it gives at least 1 free multiplier bump. E.g. on i 920 from 20x to 21x. Thats why no one notices the negative impacts of HTT, since it's usually enabled together with Turbo. Anyways, comparing highly OC'd Phenom @ 3.8ghz vs intel at i7 @ 2.66, which is more than 1ghz slower is just UNFAIR. e.g mixing apples and pears. Pro's don't do that. OC vs OC non-OC vs non-OC thats the way to go otherwise it's punching below the waist. Hilbert.
The real steal is the Phenom II 920 imo, at 1600 res it was on par or ridiculously close with both the Phenom II 940 and the i7 920.
True, but this is a review of the Phenom II's. If you want to compare it to OC'ed i7s, write down the numbers and compare it to OC'ed i7's in earlier reviews. Just read the graphs; it tells the truth. Hilbert's conclusion makes sense. He goes out of the way to tell the readers i7 is more powerful, but points out that Phenom IIs are a great value. I don't see the problem.
What I was interested was gaming at high res and there Phenom2 X4 940 @ 3.8GHz did very good job. I really dont have very much extra money atm, but I hope to upgrade in next month or two and this looks good
I don't see a problem either, except for the fact that it is all too well used by reviewers to bias the results in either way. So in effect I have more of structured critique than a "problem". And besides, some things are just unethical. So to boil it down: 1) HTT on i7 platform DOES NOT benefit on average. (taking different benchmark suites and averaging out the performance gains. In Mathematica and MatLab for example i7 with HTT can deliver up to -50% performance DECREASE) 2) Turbo does. 1x free multiplier, nuff said. 3) Give us a clock-for-clock performance comparisson. OR 4) Give the "nominal" comparisson complemented by max overclock comparisson. e.g. same price range cpu's (indeed i7 920 vs Q9550 vs Phenom 940) and then overclock each platform to it's max stable clocks and compare again. Simple, yet very, very revealing to each group of users.
Are you done bitching like a little kid in every thread I run into ? Here's my answer to your HT remarks. http://www.guru3d.com/article/intel-core-i7-920-and-965-review/10 If our reviews do not suit your needs ... then read them elsewhere. Sjeesh
Of course if you had actually read the entire article you would have noticed that every single one of the benchmarks included the stock 940 and OC'd 940 versus the others for comparison. So there was non OC vs non OC. You're implying you're a a pro huh? Schwing and a miss dude. :biggun: