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
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: SNiiPE_DoGG
depends on whether you are gaming or crunching though.
No it doesn't, performance per watt is all that matters regardless of what you are doing. Clock Cycles per watt means nothing unless the processor perform the same clock for clock.

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?
I'm guess you don't know what the word "respectively" means. I'll rephrase it to make it more clear:

When both the 920 and 965 are clocked at the same speed of 3.4GHz, the 920 drastically outperforms the 965.

by: 1Kurgan1
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.

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.
What does that have to do with anything? How much power the processor uses at its max overclock doesn't matter here, that isn't what the discussion is about.

And while the Phenom IIs are definitely a good thing, I wouldn't call them great. Great would be able to match Intel. They've managed to match Intels previous generation, but not the current. The i7 is just a step higher, which is why the prices are still pretty outragous. There is a lot more to ask for: A chip that can compete with Intel's high-end would be nice for one... Something that doesn't take 3.4GHz to match the competitions 2.6GHz would also be nice. The Phenom II will probably never be able to compete with the high end i7's, 3.4GHz is pushing the limits of the architecture, we might see one at 3.6GHz released but that will definitely be pushing the limits. Something has to be done to allow AMD to continue to compete against Intel's high end, and Phenom II ain't it. Right now, I see AMD as being in the same position Intel was with the netburst processors. It is taking very high clock speeds to match the competition's relatively low clock speeds.

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 accurate for several reasons:

1.) There are a lot, and I mean a lot, of early AM2 boards where the manufacturer simply didn't release the updates required to support Phenoms, so those users are force to change motherboards.
2.) The P965 chipset was released at amost the same time as the first AM2 boards, maybe even slightly earlier, and people with those boards have enjoys support for all the 775 processors ever released, all the way up to the 45nm quads. The i7 marks the first need to upgrade a 775 in more than 3 years. So the same argument can be made for Intel's side also. And really, with the Phenom II's only matching the 45nm 775 quads in performance, I think it is fair to compare the two. Anyone that wants more is going to have to go with i7 either way, and a new motherboard.
Posted on Reply
#2
Valdez
by: HossHuge
Not true, lots of am2 & am2+ motherboards don't support both 125 & 140 watt cpu's because they can't handle the power.
There are a lots of low power phenoms out there. 95w, 65w, 45w. Not every phenoms (and new athlons) have 125 and 140w tdp's.

Anyway lot of am2 boards can handle processors up to 125w because there were athlon x2's with 125w tdp.
Posted on Reply
#3
HossHuge
by: Valdez
There are a lots of low power phenoms out there. 95w, 65w, 45w. Not every phenoms (and new athlons) have 125 and 140w tdp's.

Anyway lot of am2 boards can handle processors up to 125w because there were athlon x2's with 125w tdp.
Sorry, from your earlier post I was led to believe you meant all the phenoms not just the lower power ones.
Posted on Reply
#4
Valdez
by: HossHuge
Sorry, from your earlier post I was led to believe you meant all the phenoms not just the lower power ones.
no problem
Posted on Reply
#5
trt740
by: Wile E
Not always true. My AM2 board can't take any phenoms at all.
Your statement in your case maybe true but it is far from the norm. Most budget AMD systems from the last three years can use current chips.. That cannot be said for intel, example, my friends computer I built is coming up on it's 3 years anniversary and it can take 83+ AMD CPU's, all the way to the current Phenoms .


Also clock speed comparisons is none sense what does it matter what speed it is compared to another chip. If the chips are made differently they are going to be clocked differently. If intel wants to show that it can blow AMD away they need to up their CPU speeds and increase their yields. Because other than the 10 percent of us overclockers the general population will look at stock performance(bang for the buck) and right now purely on stock performance AMD is a better option as a upgrade and a cheaper option for a new build, and at stock it is very similar in performance to all the intel chips. If you are a performance enthusiast Intel is your route, but it is by no means blowing AMD away or truly outperforming it. The best deal out are the AMD 940's with cheap motherboards, good on board video and cheap DDR2.
Posted on Reply
#6
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: trt740
Your statement in your case maybe true but it is far from the norm. Most budget AMD systems from the last three years can use current chips.. That cannot be said for intel, example, my friends computer I built is coming up on it's 3 years anniversary and it can take 83+ AMD CPU's, all the way to the current Phenoms .
I find this very inaccurate, as the budget AMD systems are generally the one that lack BIOS updates to support the new processors. Companies don't want to put money into developing a new BIOS for cheap boards that they make little money on. And the pre-built machines the general population are buying are even less likely to have BIOS updates.

And as I've already stated, the same argument can be made for the Intel side, if the user put some thought into the purchase in the first place. My budget P5B, which I believe I paid $100 new a week or two after it was released in 2006, works with every desktop 775 processor in existance, from the 90nm Celeron Ds all the way up to the 45nm Core 2 Quads.


by: trt740
Also clock speed comparisons is none sense what does it matter what speed it is compared to another chip. If the chips are made differently they are going to be clocked differently. If intel wants to show that it can blow AMD away they need to up their CPU speeds and increase their yields. Because other than the 10 percent of us overclockers the general population will look at stock performance and right now purely on stock performance AMD is a better option as a upgrade and a cheaper option for a new build, and at stock it is very similar in performance to all the intel chips. If you are a performance enthusiast Intel is your route, but it is by no means blowing AMD away or truly outperforming it.
The i7s definitely are better stock for stock, no doubt about that. Does it matter to the average consumer? No. The average consumer is still buying 775 hardware because it is cheaper, and the 775 hardware still competes pretty well stock for stock with AMDs offerings.

The average consumer also never upgrades their processor either, so the argument about the longevity of AM2 is pretty moot if you want to talk about the general popularion.
Posted on Reply
#7
trt740
by: newtekie1
I find this very inaccurate, as the budget AMD systems are generally the one that lack BIOS updates to support the new processors. Companies don't want to put money into developing a new BIOS for cheap boards that they make little money on. And the pre-built machines the general population are buying are even less likely to have BIOS updates.

And as I've already stated, the same argument can be made for the Intel side, if the user put some thought into the purchase in the first place. My budget P5B, which I believe I paid $100 new a week or two after it was released in 2006, works with every desktop 775 processor in existance, from the 90nm Celeron Ds all the way up to the 45nm Core 2 Quads.




The i7s definitely are better stock for stock, no doubt about that. Does it matter to the average consumer? No. The average consumer is still buying 775 hardware because it is cheaper, and the 775 hardware still competes pretty well stock for stock with AMDs offerings.

The average consumer also never upgrades their processor either, so the argument about the longevity of AM2 is pretty moot if you want to talk about the general popularion.
Sorry I don't agree, when all the components are factored I can build a AMD system for alot less and it will perform just about the same as any Intel system out. Also if your saying Asus, Gigabyte and Foxcon don't update their bios on older motherboards that's just flat out not true and those three companies make up about 70 percent of all motherboard sales world wide. Also in the real world the performance difference is not at all big, stock clock for stock clock. I have owned both systems with top end components and if you didn't tell me which one was in my computer, example a 945 DDR3 /940 DDR2 or a 920 DDr3 / QX9650 DDr2 I could not tell you what was powering my system. Now overclocked I would see some difference but even that's not giant in the real world. In a benchmark you would but not in the real world. In this case your GPU is more important. Why intel doesn't keep a socket compatible with a new cpu drives me crazy and why they don't sell cpus at or near their max potential for a reasonable price also drives me nutts. Can intel blow AMDs door off the answer is yes? Why they continue to FXXK people with their prices and let AMD hang in there I cannot tell you. The only thing I can come up with is if intel releases a I7 at 3.8ghz(stock clock) and prices it at 200.00 AMD might not exist causing a monopoly and the EU might ban them. However, as situation currently stands AMD is cheaper and the better bang for the buck.

I've used theses systems and maybe it just me but my last 4 upgrades (CPU/Ram/ Motherboard were a waste of money) My 295 gtx on the other hand is a beast and the only better option money wise was the 300.00 (new) 4870x2 mwave was selling.
Posted on Reply
#8
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: trt740
Sorry I don't agree, when all the components are factored I can build a AMD system for alot less and it will perform just about the same as any Intel system out.
Ok, build your system and lets compare. Not that it matters, you want to make arguments about the general population, but the general popular doesn't build their own machines...

by: trt740
Also if your saying Asus, Gigabyte and Foxcon don't update their bios on older motherboards that's just flat out not true and those three companies make up about 70 percent of all motherboard sales world wide.
Yes, mostly because of OEM systems, and it is up to the OEMs to make the BIOS updates, not ASUS, Gigabyte, or Foxcon.

by: trt740
Also in the real world the performance difference is not at all big, stock clock for stock clock. I have owned both systems with top end components and if you didn't tell me which one was in my computer, example a 945 DDR3 /940 DDR2 or a 920 DDr3 / QX9650 DDr2 I could not tell you what was powering my system. Now overclocked I would see some difference but even that's not giant in the real world. In a benchmark you would but not in the real world. In this case your GPU is more important.
This I agree with, and have said numerous times. It is exactly the reason I am not upgrading my 775 platform to i7, the price simply doesn't justify the next to 0 performance increase I would see. I'm instead focusing on getting my AMD rig up to snuff, mainly in the processor department, as I know I will see a very nice performance boost going from the 4200+ to a Phenom II Quad-core.

by: trt740
Why intel doesn't keep a socket compatible with a new cpu drives me crazy
Given all the new things introduced in the i7/i5 processors I can understand the need for a new socket. It was the transition from DDR to DDR2 requiring a new socket that baffled me...by hey at least they got it right when they moved to DDR3. The fact is though, sockets don't last for ever, 3 years is a good run IMO. Intel needed to move to a new socket to grow. What is driving me crazy is the move to two sockets...that is stupid!

by: trt740
and why they don't sell cpus at or near their max potential for a reasonable price also drives me nutts.
The reason for this is obvious, they don't have to. Without competition prices get insane. The processors they have to keep cheap, they do, the ones that have no competition they charge out the ass for. AMD did the same thing when Intel couldn't compete. The Athlon FX line was outragously priced because the Pentium 4/Ds simply couldn't compete. Asking anyone that paid $1000+ for an FX-60, they will tell you AMD will jack the prices up just as quick as Intel when they can.

by: trt740
Can intel blow AMDs door off the answer is yes? Why they continue to FXXK people with their prices and let AMD hang in there I cannot tell you. The only thing I can come up with is if intel release a I7 at 3.8ghz(stock clock) and priced it at 200.00 AMD might not exist causing a monopoly and the EU might ban them. however as thing currently stand AMD is cheaper.
The reason is that high end CPU sales account for maybe 10% of their total sales, the other 90% going to the mid and low end. AMD is able to compete in these sectors, so Intel has to keep the prices low in those sectors. They could release a 3.8GHz i7 and completely destroy AMD, of course AMD would just drop the price on the 965 to $10 and steal all the sales from Intel. However, doing so would cause both to not make a profit, and they would have to do it for such a large amount of time. Not making a profit gets investors pissed off, not making a profit for long enough time makes investors leave...
Posted on Reply
#9
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
Doesnt intel have a quad core with a base clock faster than this? Looks like my waiting is paying off, Id love to see a TPU review of this chip if at all possible.
Posted on Reply
#10
troyrae360
by: newtekie1



The i7s definitely are better stock for stock, no doubt about that. Does it matter to the average consumer? No. The average consumer is still buying 775 hardware because it is cheaper, and the 775 hardware still competes pretty well stock for stock with AMDs offerings.

.
Not better at Gaming, You should check the current benchmarks, Most games a pulling higher FPS with the 965.
Posted on Reply
#11
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: WarEagleAU
Doesnt intel have a quad core with a base clock faster than this? Looks like my waiting is paying off, Id love to see a TPU review of this chip if at all possible.
I don't believe so, the i7 975 is 3.33GHz. I think the highest clocked Core 2 Quad(or rather socket 775 Xeon) was 3.16GHz

by: troyrae360
Not Better at Gaming, obivousley you havent seen the benchmarks out there, most game are pulling higher FPS with 965.
Really, show me. I want to see the benchmarks showing the 965 beating an i7 975 stock for stock, how about even a i7 965, can it even beat a i7 940?
Posted on Reply
#12
trt740
Newtekie1 you do realize all the I7 costs the same amount to produce and the real company jacking the price is intel and by upping the core speed and dropping the prices on AMD they would put AMD out of business. They would still make money with shear volume and even at 200.00 (not much less than a I7 920) a I7 at 3.8 ghz would be untouchable by AMD. The cost to develop that chips is nothing just change the multiplier. You would be very hard presses to find a I7 D0 that is incapable of running at 3.8ghz and with all the voltage and temperature controls enabled the chip would run great. Intel would love to run AMD out so it would be like the early 90's. Don't think they wouldn't if they thought they could get away with it. I for one don't ever want AMD gone, but if you think intel doesn't your crazy.
Posted on Reply
#13
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: trt740
Newtekie1 you do realize all the I7 costs the same amount to produce and the real company jacking the price is intel and by upping the core speed and dropping the prices on AMD they would put AMD out of business. They would still make money with shear volume and even at 200.00 (not much less than a I7 920) a I7 at 3.8 ghz would be untouchable by AMD. The cost to develop that chips is nothing just change the multiplier. You would be very hard presses to find a I7 D0 that is incapable of running at 3.8ghz and with all the voltage and temperature controls enabled the chip would run great. Intel would love to run AMD out so it would be like the early 90's. Don't think they wouldn't if they thought they could get away with it. I for one don't ever want AMD gone, but if you think intel doesn't your crazy.
Of course they all cost the same, however Intel relies on the high profit margin models to recoup the huge costs of engineering the chip in the first place.

And a 3.8GHz i7 isn't likely with the stock cooler, something else Intel has to engineer, or licence from another company...more cuts to profit margin...

If you think AMD doesn't want Intel gone just as much as Intel wants AMD gone, you're the crazy one.
Posted on Reply
#14
trt740
by: newtekie1
Of course they all cost the same, however Intel relies on the high profit margin models to recoup the huge costs of engineering the chip in the first place.

And a 3.8GHz i7 isn't likely with the stock cooler, something else Intel has to engineer, or licence from another company...more cuts to profit margin...

If you think AMD doesn't want Intel gone just as much as Intel wants AMD gone, you're the crazy one.
I would like to fart gold but that's about as likely as AMD putting Intel out of business :D

However, Intel almost put AMD down last year, at least in the cpu market.
Posted on Reply
#15
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: trt740
I would like to fart gold but that's about as likely as AMD putting Intel out of business :D

However, Intel almost put AMD down last year, at least in the cpu market.
I didn't say it was likely, I just said AMD wants it just as much...
Posted on Reply
#16
trt740
All I have to say is great job AMD keep it up!!!!!!!
Posted on Reply
#18
trt740
by: FordGT90Concept
Core 2 + ATI buyout almost did AMD in during late 2006 and early 2007. They managed to pull through but they are still really hurting:
http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1250381172296&chddm=353263&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSE:AMD&ntsp=0

AMD is currently traded as a "penny stock."
Your correct but the 3870 and the Phenom X4 also played a big part in AMDs trouble. The 4870 and Phenom II x4 saved their butts
Posted on Reply
#19
TheMailMan78
Big Member
by: FordGT90Concept
Core 2 + ATI buyout almost did AMD in during late 2006 and early 2007. They managed to pull through but they are still really hurting:
http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1250381172296&chddm=353263&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSE:AMD&ntsp=0

AMD is currently traded as a "penny stock."
No the fact they have nothing in the market for low end laptops is what has been hurting them.
Posted on Reply
#20
PP Mguire
Lol low end laptops is hardly anything to shake a stick at.


Heres something for you guys to chew at.

Phenom II is busting through all records with Dragon setups. I dont see Intel doing this.
Posted on Reply
#21
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
by: trt740
Your correct but the 3870 and the Phenom X4 also played a big part in AMDs trouble. The 4870 and Phenom II x4 saved their butts
They aren't saved yet. FYI, graphics cards bring in far less money than processors. Graphic cards can't make or break AMD but their processors (multiple delays on Phenom and lackluster performance when it launched) and corporate decisions (buying out ATI when funds are already almost gone) can.


by: TheMailMan78
No the fact they have nothing in the market for low end laptops is what has been hurting them.
Yeah, not having much in the laptop segment is hurting as well. At the same time, I think they don't have the money to really develop two separate lines of processors to cater to each segment though. They really have to focus on one segment and try to beat Intel at their own game. Only then can they really ponder breaking into another segment but doing so risks losing their edge on the fronts they control.


by: PP Mguire
Phenom II is busting through all records with Dragon setups. I dont see Intel doing this.
Larrabee...
Posted on Reply
#22
troyrae360
by: PP Mguire
Lol low end laptops is hardly anything to shake a stick at.


Heres something for you guys to chew at.

Phenom II is busting through all records with Dragon setups. I dont see Intel doing this.
Sounds interesting, can you elaborate?
Posted on Reply
#23
PP Mguire
Dosent mean squat right now lol. It isnt out.

I personally watched AMD top the 06 world record in front of me and the chip sat at 6.8 with K|ngp|n behind the wheel. Overclocking is where im at and who sits behind the record.

AMDs plan is to target gamers who want good performance for a cheap price. Even though i sit behind Nvidia cards i dont think ATI/AMD are doing a bad job. This information btw, coming from the horses mouth.
Posted on Reply
#24
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Posted on Reply
#25
PP Mguire
Because they havent uploaded their scores yet.

Mild oc on video and 6.8 on the 965 and their first run was 38,6 with minor tweaking. They went even further than that but the booth had to close down due to Qcon rules. Im uploading pics as im typing this.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment