Thursday, August 13th 2009

AMD Raises the Performance Bar With Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition

AMD today announced the world's highest clocked quad-core processor for desktop PCs, the AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition processor. As an integral part of Dragon platform technology, this new processor features a stock frequency of 3.4 GHz, massive headroom, high-speed DDR3 memory support and AMD OverDrive 3.0 technology to deliver an enthusiast-class performance that fits into value-based budgets.

Since its initial launch in January 2009, Dragon platform technology has provided great performance at a great price. From the only company with unlocked CPUs and backwards compatibility for DDR2 memory, the AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition processor helps customers pay less for more, period. Available for a Suggested System Builder Price of $245, users opting for Intel may be paying more for less or equal performance.

With this platform, AMD is combining its fastest processor ever with the massive graphics processing muscle of its most powerful GPUs to enable the following features:
  • Record-setting overclocking capabilities
  • AMD OverDrive 3.0 tuning software
  • High-speed DDR3 memory support
  • Planned future DirectX 11 support for the latest games
  • AMD Black Edition Memory Profiles for custom experiences
  • Cool'n'Quiet 3.0 technology to enable improved efficiency and help keep your PC running cool and quiet
Add your own comment

151 Comments on AMD Raises the Performance Bar With Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition

#1
SNiiPE_DoGG
yeah it does, but its running a full 740mhz slower
Posted on Reply
#2
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: SNiiPE_DoGG
yeah it does, but its running a full 740mhz slower
The clock speed? That's not relevant. It's a 130W TDP CPU, and has a higher transistor count compared to AMD Deneb. More transistors to feed = high TDP rating a lower clock speeds. For AMD high-clock speeds and lower transistor count still amounts for 140W rated TDP.
Posted on Reply
#3
HossHuge
by: HossHuge
What comes between this and Bulldozer?
So this is AMD's fastest CPU for the next year and a half?
Posted on Reply
#4
SNiiPE_DoGG
by: HossHuge
So this is AMD's fastest CPU for the next year and a half?
975BE christmas time, 3.6ghz
Posted on Reply
#5
Kitkat
by: SNiiPE_DoGG
975BE christmas time, 3.6ghz
yeah its every 3 month or so.

by: btarunr
The clock speed? That's not relevant. It's a 130W TDP CPU, and has a higher transistor count compared to AMD Deneb. More transistors to feed = high TDP rating a lower clock speeds. For AMD high-clock speeds and lower transistor count still amounts for 140W rated TDP.
ahhhhhhhh so what your saying is amd needs a new chip to compete with i7, thats good advice :) never going to matter anyway they arent even in the same segment
Posted on Reply
#6
phanbuey
by: Kitkat
yeah its every 3 month or so.



ahhhhhhhh so what your saying is amd needs a new chip to compete with i7, thats good advice :) never going to matter anyway they arent even in the same segment
not yet theyre not... but when i5 comes they will be in the same segment as the Phenoms...
Posted on Reply
#7
araditus
by: erocker
As far as gaming goes, the 965 somewhat beats the 920's performance.

Here's a nice article for gaming comparison: http://www.pureoverclock.com/article794.html
I took this from this page : http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=794&page=12

"What you see above is how much it would cost you per framerate (increase) with a Core i7 system over a Phenom II system. The higher the number above, the worse it is because the more you will be paying for performance increase. What is being shown, for example in Left 4 Dead, is that it will cost you $26.88 extra per frame to buy a Core i7 system for gaming.


So if you get 5 fps higher in Left 4 Dead, that just cost you almost $135. Would you pay $135 for 5 fps? Can you see the difference between 114 and 119 fps? And where the two systems are even more closely matched, the case becomes worse for the Intel setup. Since the results for Crysis: Warhead are tied in single GPU configuration, this means you are paying $215 for absolutely no gaming performance increase whatsoever. That is probably very sobering for the Intel fanboys in the house right about now.

Now consider this: for a current difference of $215, you can purchase a second Radeon 4890 to go with a Crossfire setup in a Phenom II system. From a gaming perspective, the Core i7 system simply cannot compete with this."

Not saying im the expert, just a knowledgeable consumer, I have been reading reviews now for 8 years, (yea im a young'n) this is the first time I have seen a "dollar per frame" in the way they did it, I have seen price/performance, but not layed out like this, the last paragraph really hits home for me, becuase my gaming appetite can be sustained for less money, then sweeeeeeeet! And my girlfriend doesnt care if I have 4 more fps than the other guy :) but we all have our priorities and desires on how to spend our money :)

As far as number crunching is concerned I am aware that a 920 will beat out AMD's offerings, however, when I set to compress a blu-ray movies or what have you, the longer it takes, the more time I get to make a snack or look out the window at the pretty blue birds, if my pc did it too fast I would never get time to leave the room :P
Posted on Reply
#9
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: SNiiPE_DoGG
except what that chart doesnt tell you is that (IIRC) the i7 920 and q9550 draw more power than the 955 and 965 at 3.2ghz and 3.4ghz respectively.
Yes, and the Q9550 and I7 920 drastically outperform the 955 and 965 respectively at 3.2GHz and 3.4GHz respectively.

When the processors perform the same clock for clock, then you can make that argument. However, until then, performance per watt is what matters not clock cycle per watt.
Posted on Reply
#11
SNiiPE_DoGG
by: newtekie1
Yes, and the Q9550 and I7 920 drastically outperform the 955 and 965 respectively at 3.2GHz and 3.4GHz respectively.

When the processors perform the same clock for clock, then you can make that argument. However, until then, performance per watt is what matters not clock cycle per watt.
depends on whether you are gaming or crunching though.
Posted on Reply
#12
troyrae360
I think the thing to also remember is that AMD users havent had to update there Mobos for the last 3 years!! I got mine 2 years ago for my athlon 6400+ and and still put the latest Phenom into it :) Instantly saving $200-$400 NZ dollers:pimp:
Posted on Reply
#13
exodusprime1337
sweet deal, looks like this may be the chip that replaces my 940.. perhaps it'll hit higher then 3.9 under water... so i hope...
Posted on Reply
#14
hat
Maximum Overclocker
by: newtekie1
Yes, and the Q9550 and I7 920 drastically outperform the 955 and 965 respectively at 3.2GHz and 3.4GHz respectively.

When the processors perform the same clock for clock, then you can make that argument. However, until then, performance per watt is what matters not clock cycle per watt.
This is the truth... behind all truths.
Posted on Reply
#15
savor_of_filth
AMD = Best bang for the buck!

yes i7 outperform all Phenom ii,but i7 pricing is killing me.
Posted on Reply
#16
troyrae360
by: newtekie1
Yes, and the Q9550 and I7 920 drastically outperform the 955 and 965 respectively at 3.2GHz and 3.4GHz respectively.

When the processors perform the same clock for clock, then you can make that argument. However, until then, performance per watt is what matters not clock cycle per watt.
Actually, after 5 min of looking at benchmarks it would seem that the 965 is a better processor for gaming than i7 920,

so if the 920 is drastically outpreforming the 965 why dose the 965 score better fps in most games?
Posted on Reply
#17
Wile E
Power User
by: araditus
I took this from this page : http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=794&page=12

"What you see above is how much it would cost you per framerate (increase) with a Core i7 system over a Phenom II system. The higher the number above, the worse it is because the more you will be paying for performance increase. What is being shown, for example in Left 4 Dead, is that it will cost you $26.88 extra per frame to buy a Core i7 system for gaming.


So if you get 5 fps higher in Left 4 Dead, that just cost you almost $135. Would you pay $135 for 5 fps? Can you see the difference between 114 and 119 fps? And where the two systems are even more closely matched, the case becomes worse for the Intel setup. Since the results for Crysis: Warhead are tied in single GPU configuration, this means you are paying $215 for absolutely no gaming performance increase whatsoever. That is probably very sobering for the Intel fanboys in the house right about now.

Now consider this: for a current difference of $215, you can purchase a second Radeon 4890 to go with a Crossfire setup in a Phenom II system. From a gaming perspective, the Core i7 system simply cannot compete with this."

Not saying im the expert, just a knowledgeable consumer, I have been reading reviews now for 8 years, (yea im a young'n) this is the first time I have seen a "dollar per frame" in the way they did it, I have seen price/performance, but not layed out like this, the last paragraph really hits home for me, becuase my gaming appetite can be sustained for less money, then sweeeeeeeet! And my girlfriend doesnt care if I have 4 more fps than the other guy :) but we all have our priorities and desires on how to spend our money :)

As far as number crunching is concerned I am aware that a 920 will beat out AMD's offerings, however, when I set to compress a blu-ray movies or what have you, the longer it takes, the more time I get to make a snack or look out the window at the pretty blue birds, if my pc did it too fast I would never get time to leave the room :P
If all your are concerned with is gaming, of course the video card is more important.

I really don't see the point of using gaming tests to compare cpus. Just doesn't make much sense to me.

Personally, I'm waiting to upgrade for 6 cores or more. I want a multithreading monster.

These clock speed bumps from AMD are getting old. It's like watching Intel in the P4 days. Quit just upping clocks already, and innovate somehow. Give us an 8 core cpu or something like that.
Posted on Reply
#18
pr0n Inspector
by: btarunr
The clock speed? That's not relevant. It's a 130W TDP CPU, and has a higher transistor count compared to AMD Deneb. More transistors to feed = high TDP rating a lower clock speeds. For AMD high-clock speeds and lower transistor count still amounts for 140W rated TDP.
No. i7 has a lower transistor count than Deneb.
Posted on Reply
#19
Wile E
Power User
by: troyrae360
I think the thing to also remember is that AMD users havent had to update there Mobos for the last 3 years!! I got mine 2 years ago for my athlon 6400+ and and still put the latest Phenom into it :) Instantly saving $200-$400 NZ dollers:pimp:
Not always true. My AM2 board can't take any phenoms at all.
Posted on Reply
#20
eidairaman1
by: Wile E
If all your are concerned with is gaming, of course the video card is more important.

I really don't see the point of using gaming tests to compare cpus. Just doesn't make much sense to me.

Personally, I'm waiting to upgrade for 6 cores or more. I want a multithreading monster.

These clock speed bumps from AMD are getting old. It's like watching Intel in the P4 days. Quit just upping clocks already, and innovate somehow. Give us an 8 core cpu or something like that.
this is probably stop gap procedures for the time being, they probably do have something in the works for the next 5-6 years.
Posted on Reply
#21
phanbuey
by: troyrae360
Actually, after 5 min of looking at benchmarks it would seem that the 965 is a better processor for gaming than i7 920,

so if the 920 is drastically outpreforming the 965 why dose the 965 score better fps in most games?
higher clockrate IMO, most games are not threaded to take advantage of a low clocked quad with 8 cores...

In sheer processor power, the i7 920 beats out my Q9650 at 3.9Ghz in many benchmarks.

I wish they would release a chip that can break 4Ghz easily. If AMD is gonna play the clockspeed game they better release a chip that can clock higher than an i5 or they're screwed.
Posted on Reply
#22
Valdez
by: Wile E
Not always true. My AM2 board can't take any phenoms at all.
It can, but your mobo manufacturer doesn't give a shit about your mobo, and didn't release new bios with phenom support.
Posted on Reply
#23
1Kurgan1
The Knife in your Back
by: newtekie1
Yes, and the Q9550 and I7 920 drastically outperform the 955 and 965 respectively at 3.2GHz and 3.4GHz respectively.

When the processors perform the same clock for clock, then you can make that argument. However, until then, performance per watt is what matters not clock cycle per watt.
It still matters in the end as i7's OC to very high numbers. So you will need a beefier PSU to be running that i7 at 4.2ghz.

by: Wile E
These clock speed bumps from AMD are getting old. It's like watching Intel in the P4 days. Quit just upping clocks already, and innovate somehow. Give us an 8 core cpu or something like that.
PII's just came out less than 8 months ago. They are good chips, what they are missing is HT, and I don't know if they will ever have it as I think it's now copyrighted, so can't really ask for much more.
Posted on Reply
#24
$ReaPeR$
personally i think that each one should buy the best CPU for the tasks he performs more often.
Posted on Reply
#25
HossHuge
by: Valdez
It can, but your mobo manufacturer doesn't give a shit about your mobo, and didn't release new bios with phenom support.
Not true, lots of am2 & am2+ motherboards don't support both 125 & 140 watt cpu's because they can't handle the power.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment