Tuesday, December 23rd 2008

Phenom II X4 940 Tested at Stock Speeds

BreakTheLimt.net, a Malaysian hardware portal tested the Phenom II X4 940 at its stock speed of 3.00 GHz, and posted a sting of benchmark results of the said chip. It was tested on a platform consisting of a MSI DKA790GX Platinum motherboard, with 2 GB of DDR2 1066 MHz memory and a ASUS Radeon HD 4870 TOP graphics card. All components were set to run at stock speeds. The chip was put through Super Pi 1M and 32M, Cinebench R10, PiFast Multithreaded, WPrime 1.5, Aquamark and 3DMark06.


Source: BreakTheLimit.net
Add your own comment

135 Comments on Phenom II X4 940 Tested at Stock Speeds

#1
farlex85
by: Paulieg
How about we just wait for some real world benchmarks, perhaps? TRT740, myself and ascstinger will all have 945 BE ES chips within the week, and then we'll see.
Ah yes that's what we need some TPU benching. Can I put in an early request for some Sandra tests?

by: Woody112
Now I know why all those other bench marks floating around here on TPU had a black bar going across the voltage on CPU-z.
I'm not going to BS anyone I've always been an intel fan but was actually considering the possibility of making a jump to AMD. Still may if prices are really good.
I've been getting excited by the hype wanting prices to come down in a nice CPU war, but these look incredibly lackluster. Barely matching a 2 year old proc at a projected $275 while using more voltage? No thanks. We shall see though, there is still hope.
Posted on Reply
#2

That is very poor and embarassing for AMD, my Q6600 @3GHz could manage 12K+ in cinebench with ease.
Posted on Edit | Reply
#3
Paulieg
The Mad Moderator
by: farlex85
Ah yes that's what we need some TPU benching. Can I put in an early request for some Sandra tests?
without a doubt. I just hate all of the fanboy slamming even before release. Just drives me nuts.
Posted on Reply
#4
Woody112
by: Paulieg
How about we just wait for some real world benchmarks, perhaps? TRT740, myself and ascstinger will all have 945 BE ES chips within the week, and then we'll see.
Looking forward to a proper review.:toast:
Posted on Reply
#5
farlex85
by: Paulieg
without a doubt. I just hate all of the fanboy slamming even before release. Just drives me nuts.
Sorry I'm not trying to make it fanboyish if your referring to my comments, this just seems quite disappointing, I have visions of competition dancing in my head.....
Posted on Reply
#6
Woody112
by: Paulieg
without a doubt. I just hate all of the fanboy slamming even before release. Just drives me nuts.
I wasn't trying to slam anything, if thats what you were referring to.:shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#7
jydie
by: Woody112
Looking forward to a proper review.:toast:
I second that!! :toast:
Posted on Reply
#8
ShadowFold
Guys, these take voltage better than Intel chips. 1.3v is like 1.2v on an Intel CPU.
Posted on Reply
#9
Paulieg
The Mad Moderator
by: Woody112
I wasn't trying to slam anything, if thats what you were referring to.:shadedshu
No, not you specifically. :).
Posted on Reply
#10
farlex85
by: Paulieg
You can keep that vision, it just needs to be against the penryn and not i7. i7 is on another level, performance wise and PRICE wise.
I can handle penryn like performance, so long as it beats penryn prices (by a healthy margin preferably). I can't get excited about something that does what someone else already did several months ago, a year ago, 2 years ago, for the same price. If these are projected to come in at $270 or so and like these benches say only perform on par w/ a q6600, that's just disappointing. But, I will hold out until you guys get your hands on them and we get some more in depth reviews, perhaps a surprise awaits. Not like I'm buying anything this month anyway. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#11
aCid888*


They both don't look so good when put against this E8400 of mine on this shitty DFI board that likes to die.
Posted on Reply
#12
r9
What do you expect from Phenom II I don`t know. Q6600 was beating Phenom I all day long now we have Phenom II that has no design improvements only larger L3 cache and we all know how much AMD processors benefit from larger cache ZERO.
Intel could do nothing after Q6600 and still be in front of AMD. They could just make 45nm Q6600 and that is what it take to master Phenom II.
That is just pitifull.
I don`t know what AMD are thinking.
Posted on Reply
#14
Melvis
by: aCid888*


They both don't look so good when put against this E8400 of mine on this shitty DFI board that likes to die.
Just proves to show that Quad cores are not any good for this test!!

We need something that is multi threaded that can utilize all four cores, then we might see how a quad core is meant to run.
Posted on Reply
#15
Steevo
by: farlex85
Wow I didn't even realize that. What's going on here, can we get some 9950 comparisons? Did they just up the voltage and clock speed a bit, create more headroom and slap a new sticker on it? How is this even that much better than Phenom I?
Votage leak is nominal on the CPU, so all the voltage is actually going to work rather than keeping the current high enough in the core to do the work. So higher voltage is not what it used to be with this CPU.


One last thought, remember the 48XX cards and how they were setup before the launch? It is very possible all extrenal engineering samples are not what the final product will be.
Posted on Reply
#16
HTC
by: Woody112
Not bad but 1.352v for 3ghz.:eek:
You're like comparing apple juice to lemon juice in terms of acidity: P II voltage is very different the Intel / previous AMD procs.

by: ShadowFold
Guys, these take voltage better than Intel chips. 1.3v is like 1.2v on an Intel CPU.
I'm thinking less, even. IIRC, there were reported load temps of less then 50ยบ with 1.5+ Vcore.

Did the reviewers make temps screenies?

by: Steevo
Votage leak is nominal on the CPU, so all the voltage is actually going to work rather than keeping the current high enough in the core to do the work. So higher voltage is not what it used to be with this CPU.
This is why temps on P II are better then Intel / older AMD procs.
Posted on Reply
#17
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
AMD has always run @ higher volts than intel? :confused:
Posted on Reply
#18
HTC
by: Melvis
Just proves to show that Quad cores are not any good for this test!!

We need something that is multi threaded that can utilize all four cores, then we might see how a quad core is meant to run.
Encode a movie: aren't encoding progs multi threaded?

Using the same settings, encode any movie with both procs @ same speed and check the result.
Posted on Reply
#19
miloshs
retail?

Seriously if ths chip is going to sell at a 200$ mark then its a winner in any case, but on the real world side... i doubt it will be that cheap, FGS the 9950's are selling at 200$ price point...


Im expecting low 250$...

And a suggestion for Pauleig... when you get the chip, you can also do a OC test on a 790FX/SB600 board just to see how it fares compared to 790GX/SB750 boards...
Would be nice to see if we people of the SB600 group really need to change to GX's or not...
Posted on Reply
#20
Melvis
by: r9
What do you expect from Phenom II I don`t know. Q6600 was beating Phenom I all day long now we have Phenom II that has no design improvements only larger L3 cache and we all know how much AMD processors benefit from larger cache ZERO.
Intel could do nothing after Q6600 and still be in front of AMD. They could just make 45nm Q6600 and that is what it take to master Phenom II.
That is just pitifull.
I don`t know what AMD are thinking.
I don't know what you are thinking, but far as i know AMD did a list of improvements on this new Phenom apart from just cashe sizes, i remember looking back in some old threads and seeing a list of about 10 different improvements, i cant remember what but there was a fare few. And to get over 6GHz is Phenomenal, so i think they have done a bit more improvements then the previous Phenom some how, which never really got past 3.4Ghz.
Posted on Reply
#21
Paulieg
The Mad Moderator
by: miloshs
Seriously if ths chip is going to sell at a 200$ mark then its a winner in any case, but on the real world side... i doubt it will be that cheap, FGS the 9950's are selling at 200$ price point...


Im expecting low 250$...

And a suggestion for Pauleig... when you get the chip, you can also do a OC test on a 790FX/SB600 board just to see how it fares compared to 790GX/SB750 boards...
Would be nice to see if we people of the SB600 group really need to change to GX's or not...
If someone loans me one, I'd be happy to. From what I hear about SB600 is that it can work. There is a guy at [H] with a chip like I'm getting, and I believe it posts about half the time.
Posted on Reply
#22
ShadowFold
The Phenom II's have ACC built in. The reason SB600 sucked at OC'ing is because it was missing ACC and a few other features than are built into the PII's.
Posted on Reply
#23
fullinfusion
1.21 Gigawatts
by: HTC
Encode a movie: aren't encoding progs multi threaded?

Using the same settings, encode any movie with both procs @ same speed and check the result.
I use Any video converter to encode my movies... there you can select 0-8 cores for encoding... if its selected 0-8 before the encode is started say 4 for AMD its wicked fast... id love to see it in action with the I7 and set the encode cores to 8 :toast:
Posted on Reply
#25
Melvis
by: HTC
Encode a movie: aren't encoding progs multi threaded?

Using the same settings, encode any movie with both procs @ same speed and check the result.
Umm i think so, i just did the other day a movie that was a AVI file and transcoded to all VOB files, and it was using all four cores for this, and i was surprised it could utilize all four cores been such a old program. Shame i don't have a Q6600 to test along side the 9950 BE that i have at the moment. All i can say is that it did the movie a good 35% faster then my FX-57 and was only using 30% of all the CPU's

SO yea that's what we need same set up and a program that utilizes all four cores and at the same clock speed, i agree with you there ;)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment