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: Wile E
And AMD charged $1000 for cpus when they had the performance crown as well. So the top-end price argument is moot. Hell, before Core 2 came out, it was cheaper for me to build a mid-range dual core Intel system of similar performance than it was to build a 3800+ X2 system from AMD. (I still bought the AMD anyway).
Exactly, for the price of what I paid for my single core 939 system when I first built it, I could have put together a dual-core Pentium D machine...
Posted on Reply
#2
Melvis
by: newtekie1
Well of course, but the 975 also completely owns the X4 965 in performance....

If you look at the processor that the X4 965 actually comptetes with, the i7 920, the picture is a little different.

http://www.xpmicro.com.au/cgi-bin/xpmicro/BX80601920.html

And I think if I was in that situation, I'd save the $100 and go with the X4 810...
Yes i do realize that the i7 920 is priced well to compete with AMD's top offering and i commend intel for this, but i don't think the i7 975 is 4x the performance of a Phenom 965 to justify the high price? But yes we all know since it can''t be beaten they can set such a high price blablabla (939 days was completely different)

I bought my old 939 3700+ for $325 (that was cheap back then) and now i can get a 3.4GHz Quad core for $50 more, like hello that is just a unreal price for a great performing CPU.

by: newtekie1
Exactly, for the price of what I paid for my single core 939 system when I first built it, I could have put together a dual-core Pentium D machine...
Well you could of bought your self a mid range Dual Core 939 and still be ahead of Intel's Pentium D for cheaper, just remember that even tho intel was getting raped back then that there prices was still very high and some times higher then that of AMD's top CPU's for WAY less performance.

Just remember i working on AUS prices not USA, i know the prices over there are alot closer then here.
Posted on Reply
#3
Wile E
Power User
by: Melvis
Yes i do realize that the i7 920 is priced well to compete with AMD's top offering and i commend intel for this, but i don't think the i7 975 is 4x the performance of a Phenom 965 to justify the high price? But yes we all know since it can''t be beaten they can set such a high price blablabla (939 days was completely different)

I bought my old 939 3700+ for $325 (that was cheap back then) and now i can get a 3.4GHz Quad core for $50 more, like hello that is just a unreal price for a great performing CPU.



Well you could of bought your self a mid range Dual Core 939 and still be ahead of Intel's Pentium D for cheaper, just remember that even tho intel was getting raped back then that there prices was still very high and some times higher then that of AMD's top CPU's for WAY less performance.

Just remember i working on AUS prices not USA, i know the prices over there are alot closer then here.
That wasn't true over here. The bottom of the line AMD was more expensive to build than the middle of the line Intel. It wasn't until Core2 hit that AMD drastically lowered their prices.

As for $1000 cpus, AMD's $1000 cpus didn't have a good price/performance ratio either. Their prices for top end were just as gouged.
Posted on Reply
#4
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Melvis
Yes i do realize that the i7 920 is priced well to compete with AMD's top offering and i commend intel for this, but i don't think the i7 975 is 4x the performance of a Phenom 965 to justify the high price? But yes we all know since it can''t be beaten they can set such a high price blablabla (939 days was completely different)

I bought my old 939 3700+ for $325 (that was cheap back then) and now i can get a 3.4GHz Quad core for $50 more, like hello that is just a unreal price for a great performing CPU.
Since when in the computer industry has price gone up in the same linear fashion performance does? The stuff at the top with no competition always, and I mean always, costs a ridiculous amount more for little performance improvement. It doesn't matter if it is Intel or AMD or nVidia or ATi. And the only difference in the 939 days was that AMD was on top charging insane prices for their processors.


by: Melvis
Well you could of bought your self a mid range Dual Core 939 and still be ahead of Intel's Pentium D for cheaper, just remember that even tho intel was getting raped back then that there prices was still very high and some times higher then that of AMD's top CPU's for WAY less performance.

Just remember i working on AUS prices not USA, i know the prices over there are alot closer then here.
No, I think you forget exactly how bad AMD was overpricing their processors back in the 939 days. I could have gotten the cheapest 939 board, with the cheapest 2GB set of DDR I could find, and because the X2 3800+ was so outragously price, it would have still cost more than a high end Pentium D machine with a high end motherboard and a PD 840.

I will say that Intel still overcharged for the extreme edition chips when they were behind AMD...
Posted on Reply
#5
PP Mguire
by: newtekie1
While holding world records is nice, it doesn't really help AMD any. It does increase their "street cred" a little among overclockers, but doesn't really help them in the long run. The general public doesn't even read about overclocking, and the ones that do don't care to do it. The general public doesn't buy high end either, both companies make the bulk of their revenue from mid-range. The dual-core, tri-cores, maybe low end quads. That is why AMD doesn't really care about the unlocking thing, because they need to make processors to fill the demand of the mid-range, and most of the people buying them won't bother to unlock them.

Holding overclocking records only marginally helps boost sales.



Well of course, but the 975 also completely owns the X4 965 in performance....

If you look at the processor that the X4 965 actually comptetes with, the i7 920, the picture is a little different.

http://www.xpmicro.com.au/cgi-bin/xpmicro/BX80601920.html

And I think if I was in that situation, I'd save the $100 and go with the X4 810...
I understand what your saying, but look at it this way. The high end AMD is about the same price as the low end i7 and IF you where into extreme overclocking you could pwn a bunch.

I really do love this forum. I expected a huge flame war and came back to excelent discussion. :rockout:
No, I think you forget exactly how bad AMD was overpricing their processors back in the 939 days. I could have gotten the cheapest 939 board, with the cheapest 2GB set of DDR I could find, and because the X2 3800+ was so outragously price, it would have still cost more than a high end Pentium D machine with a high end motherboard and a PD 840.

I will say that Intel still overcharged for the extreme edition chips when they were behind AMD...
True, but you have to admit the 939 X2s absolutely demolished the D's. So the price to 939 X2 is as to the price of i7 today.
Posted on Reply
#6
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: PP Mguire
True, but you have to admit the 939 X2s absolutely demolished the D's. So the price to 939 X2 is as to the price of i7 today.
I absolutely admit it, just like the i7s demolish the Phenom II. My point was that AMD did the same thing back then when they could, so people shouldn't kid themselves and say Intel doing it with the i7s are any different, and AMD is the good guy for not overpricing their processors. AMD doesn't overprice their processors because they can't, not because they don't want to, if they could they would.
Posted on Reply
#7
Hayder_Master
by: btarunr
He's Sami "macci" Mäkinen. Legendary overclocker, AMD employee.
i wonder how much AMD pay to this guy in a month
Posted on Reply
#8
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
by: newtekie1
I absolutely admit it, just like the i7s demolish the Phenom II. My point was that AMD did the same thing back then when they could, so people shouldn't kid themselves and say Intel doing it with the i7s are any different, and AMD is the good guy for not overpricing their processors. AMD doesn't overprice their processors because they can't, not because they don't want to, if they could they would.
Very true--FX anyone? The FX-58 was going for like $1200. The P4 EE 3.8 GHz was going for $1000. The only reason why the EE didn't sell for $300 is because it wasn't that much slower than the FX-58. It's not like the performance equivilent of a Grand Canyon we see between Phenom II X4 965 and the Core i7 975; hence the grand canyon sized price difference between them.


by: hayder.master
i wonder how much AMD pay to this guy in a month
Average wage + free AMD equipment to break. Derrick Meyer and Hector Ruiz make a few digits more.
Posted on Reply
#9
Hayder_Master
by: ShadowFold
I've seen a few at 4ghz+ on air.. forgot where that was. I'd get one, but I just bought a GTS 250 and I'm in quite a bit of a financial mess right now..
mmm , nice
Posted on Reply
#10
Hayder_Master
by: FordGT90Concept


Average wage + free AMD equipment to break. Derrick Meyer and Hector Ruiz make a few digits more.
and what is the expect Average for AMD
Posted on Reply
#11
troyrae360
AMD it the better choice for Overclockers, thats for sure, the new phenoms oc way higher!!
Posted on Reply
#12
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
by: hayder.master
and what is the expect Average for AMD
I'd estimate around $30/hr. give or take $20 depending on position (like research lead compared to a secretary).
Posted on Reply
#13
Melvis
by: Wile E
That wasn't true over here. The bottom of the line AMD was more expensive to build than the middle of the line Intel. It wasn't until Core2 hit that AMD drastically lowered their prices.

As for $1000 cpus, AMD's $1000 cpus didn't have a good price/performance ratio either. Their prices for top end were just as gouged.
Well thats fair enough if it wasn't true for over there, then i can totally understand it. Im just saying over here it was the opposite AMDs was cheaper then the Intel base systems in all area's. I still remember looking up the FX-57 and FX-60 and going wow thats expensive (over $1000) but then looking at the intelP4 3.73EE CPU and saying to my self OMG thats insane price at almost $500 more then AMD''s top end. Had to suck for you American's for the 939 era?

by: newtekie1
Since when in the computer industry has price gone up in the same linear fashion performance does? The stuff at the top with no competition always, and I mean always, costs a ridiculous amount more for little performance improvement. It doesn't matter if it is Intel or AMD or nVidia or ATi. And the only difference in the 939 days was that AMD was on top charging insane prices for their processors.

Well the price of the top end CPU's from both sides have been in the past and now if they have no competition of course they can set a high price. AMD did this in the 939 era, BUT at the same time so did Intel even tho they was WAY behind in performance(up to 1.3GHz behind) but they still set as high and most of the time higher prices (In AUS anyway) The thing is that with the New Phenom 965 the price in which it is set at (comparing to back in the day) it is just an amazingly priced CPU for the Performance you get, here in AUS, its not priced like over $1000 like intel did even tho they had worse performance back then, so if you look at it like that its priced very very well, they could do a intel and make you pay as much as a high end i7, but they didn't.


No, I think you forget exactly how bad AMD was overpricing their processors back in the 939 days. I could have gotten the cheapest 939 board, with the cheapest 2GB set of DDR I could find, and because the X2 3800+ was so outragously price, it would have still cost more than a high end Pentium D machine with a high end motherboard and a PD 840.

I will say that Intel still overcharged for the extreme edition chips when they were behind AMD...
As i said to Will E, it must of been different over there in the states. I remember when the X2 3800 was out and discussing this at TAFE and bringing up the fact that the only Dual Core CPU out on the market for under $200 was the X2 3800, not even the teacher new this. So over here in AUS it WAS the cheapest Dual Core CPU on the market. Motherboards for the 939 was ok ish mine cost me $155 and it was the best Gigabyte 939 Mobo at that time. I cant comment on Intel's sorry.
Posted on Reply
#14
Hayder_Master
by: FordGT90Concept
I'd estimate around $30/hr. give or take $20 depending on position (like research lead compared to a secretary).
ohh , it is very humble i expect more
Posted on Reply
#15
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
$50 an hour is $100,000 a year approximately. There's most likely several that make upwards of $100 an hour ($250,000 a year) and, at the very top, some may make $1,000,000+ a year.

Some corporations have CEOs that only make $1 a year (e.g. Steve Jobs). People like that make their fortune by owning lots of stock in the company and get paid on the dividends.
Posted on Reply
#16
Wile E
Power User
by: troyrae360
AMD it the better choice for Overclockers, thats for sure, the new phenoms oc way higher!!
But the i7 still out performs them at their slower clocks. I don't see how PhII the better choice for OCers.
Posted on Reply
#17
Hayder_Master
by: FordGT90Concept
$50 an hour is $100,000 a year approximately. There's most likely several that make upwards of $100 an hour ($250,000 a year) and, at the very top, some may make $1,000,000+ a year.

Some corporations have CEOs that only make $1 a year (e.g. Steve Jobs). People like that make their fortune by owning lots of stock in the company and get paid on the dividends.
50$ in an hour looks good reason to make people study hard to get this , nice info dude , thanx a lot :toast:
Posted on Reply
#18
Kantastic
by: Wile E
But the i7 still out performs them at their slower clocks. I don't see how PhII the better choice for OCers.
Enthusiast overclockers who are looking for records use Phenom II's.

Or at least that's what I think he meant.
Posted on Reply
#19
Wile E
Power User
by: Kantastic
Enthusiast overclockers who are looking for records use Phenom II's.

Or at least that's what I think he meant.
What records? Intel still holds everything except clock speeds in this generation. (more on that in a minute)

Don't get me wrong, Phenom II's are still great cpus, and can hold their own in extreme benching, but they aren't THE choice for chasing records unless it's hardware specific records, or clock speed records. As for the clock speed records, Intel still actually holds that as well, with the P4, but at the time, it was outperformed by AMD at much lower clocks. The same thing is happening today, only the roles are reversed.

That to me says that Intel is still the better choice overall when it come to extreme benching, unless you specifically want to go for AMD records, because AMD gave them to your for free/are paying you to clock them, or just for fun. For chasing overall records, Intel is the best choice.
Posted on Reply
#20
PP Mguire
They still havent put the records up from Quakecon that they blew away.
Posted on Reply
#21
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
by: PP Mguire
They still havent put the records up from Quakecon that they blew away.
That mean they aren't verifiable?
Posted on Reply
#22
Wile E
Power User
by: FordGT90Concept
That mean they aren't verifiable?
Or that it's just more clock records, and not performance records. Which are still impressive feats.
Posted on Reply
#23
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Wile E
What records? Intel still holds everything except clock speeds in this generation. (more on that in a minute)

Don't get me wrong, Phenom II's are still great cpus, and can hold their own in extreme benching, but they aren't THE choice for chasing records unless it's hardware specific records, or clock speed records. As for the clock speed records, Intel still actually holds that as well, with the P4, but at the time, it was outperformed by AMD at much lower clocks. The same thing is happening today, only the roles are reversed.

That to me says that Intel is still the better choice overall when it come to extreme benching, unless you specifically want to go for AMD records, because AMD gave them to your for free/are paying you to clock them, or just for fun. For chasing overall records, Intel is the best choice.
And that is why I've made several comments about how the Phenoms are the Netbursts of the current CPU world. High clock speeds and still being outperformed by the competition's lower clocked processors. And when their processors couldn't keep up, what do they do? Throw more cache in them... sounds familar...
Posted on Reply
#25
trt740
by: newtekie1
And that is why I've made several comments about how the Phenoms are the Netbursts of the current CPU world. High clock speeds and still being outperformed by the competition's lower clocked processors. And when their processors couldn't keep up, what do they do? Throw more cache in them... sounds familar...
The comparison your making is nowhere nears as lopsided as it was back when the P4 and first AMD 64 were slugging it out. The performance gap is much closer now and if intel could put out a higher clocked cpu with the stock cooler (at a reasonable price) then they should but don't blame AMD for increasing performance and selling their chips at a decent price. Also these chips are not the same as the x2 chips physically so they are not just increasing on chip memory and mhz. The Phenom II chips are a completely different design with a newer memory controller, lower power requirements ,smaller die size and lower operating temperatures.. These chips can take a lot of voltage and still run fairly cool so who cares if AMD pumps up the core speed. To me if the cpu can take it why not. This seems to show just how well designed these chips are. AMD release a 3.6ghz version!!!!! Watch and see I bet they do.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment