| Thursday, July 23rd 2009 |
AMD quietly decked up shelves with a new processor, this time, a low TDP variant of the Phenom II X4 945 quad-core processor. Carrying the model identifier "HDX945WFK4DGI", the Phenom II X4 945 95W comes with a significantly lower TDP rating compared to its 125W predecessor. It first surfaced on a CPU-support list by MSI, that leaked details of some unreleased processors. Based on the 45 nm Deneb core, in the AM3 package, the Phenom II X4 945 has an operating frequency of 3.00 GHz, 3.6 GT/s HyperTransport 3.0 system interface, 512 KB L2 cache per core, and a 6 MB shared L3 cache. It supports DDR2 and DDR3 memory standards. It has a bus multiplier of 15.0x which is upwards-locked since this is not a Black Edition SKU. It will have the same suggested retail price as its 125W version, at US $225.
posted by btarunr - 11:58 AM | Related News |
User comments
by: lococolLooking at AMD's past record with Phenom 9750 125W and 95W, I'm skeptical.
should these offer better overclocks?
by Winterwind (12:23 PM) - Reply
by: lococolmaybe little.. but they should oc better with low vcore
should these offer better overclocks?
by TheMailMan78 (12:38 PM) - Reply
by: lococolI doubt it with a locked multi.
should these offer better overclocks?
by: TheMailMan78The 125W one has a locked multiplier too.
I doubt it with a locked multi.
I think AMD missed out by not making this a BE, a 95W quad would be nice with an unlocked multi.
by TheMailMan78 (1:01 PM) - Reply
by: btarunrI was thinking of the 955 :rolleyes:
The 125W one has a locked multiplier too.
Well, regardless of how it overclocks, that's a nice TDP. For people with boards that have shitty MOSFETS like me, it's great. :D
by: TheMailMan78He was asking about how it compares to the 125W version.
I was thinking of the 955 :rolleyes:
by Cheeseball (1:17 PM) - Reply
Now all they have to do is make 65W versions (that aren't E parts) and we should have efficient processors. (Or at least to catch up to the awesomeness of the Q6600.)
by: CheeseballWhat's wrong with the E parts? Got the same amount of cache and everything.
Now all they have to do is make 65W versions (that aren't E parts) and we should have efficient processors. (Or at least to catch up to the awesomeness of the Q6600.)
Hopefully this means that whole issue with the 140w barrier isn't really an issue. Maybe the first batch of 965s will be 140w, but hopefully they can release a second batch that is 125w, and something higher than the 965 that pushs back up to 140w.
by: mdm-adphThey are rediculously expensive, and have low clock speeds and multipliers...
What's wrong with the E parts? Got the same amount of cache and everything.
by: CheeseballThen you need to have Intel make chipsets that don't consume so much power. The final results for AMD or Intel are pretty close in Wattage, one requires more to the proc and one requires more to the chipset.
Now all they have to do is make 65W versions (that aren't E parts) and we should have efficient processors. (Or at least to catch up to the awesomeness of the Q6600.)
by: newtekie1Is the 965 for sure a 140W model? I haven't looked into it a ton, but I could see it being released as a 125W model seeing as they just made this move.
Hopefully this means that whole issue with the 140w barrier isn't really an issue. Maybe the first batch of 965s will be 140w, but hopefully they can release a second batch that is 125w, and something higher than the 965 that pushs back up to 140w.
by: 1Kurgan1Since it hasn't been released yet, we aren't 100% for sure, at least I'm not. However, there is some evidence to suggest it. Main with motherboard manufacturers listing it in their support lists as 140w. Which is usually a pretty good indicator that it will be 140w.
Is the 965 for sure a 140W model? I haven't looked into it a ton, but I could see it being released as a 125W model seeing as they just made this move.
by: newtekie1Yeah, and that's why no one in their right mind should be buying E parts for their clock speeds. :wtf: That's not the point. :laugh:
They are rediculously expensive, and have low clock speeds and multipliers...
by: mdm-adphActually, I think that was exactly his point.
Yeah, and that's why no one in their right mind should be buying E parts for their clock speeds. :wtf: That's not the point. :laugh:
by Bjorn_Of_Iceland (2:12 PM) - Reply
nice
by: newtekie1I don't think I see any point, sir. Why don't Ferraris cost the same as Fords? Ferrari seriously needs to make a car that costs the same as a Ford.
Actually, I think that was exactly his point.
by Bjorn_Of_Iceland (2:51 PM) - Reply
by: CheeseballWell I do wish you have the numbers to prove that. If so, thats great.. AMD users are now experiencing performance on what intel users have been experiencing ever since three or more years ago :rockout:
Now all they have to do is make 65W versions (that aren't E parts) and we should have efficient processors. (Or at least to catch up to the awesomeness of the Q6600.)
by: mdm-adphI didn't say I agreed with is point, I was just explaining what he meant. He wants the best of all worlds: Cheap, Low Power, and Fast. The normal Phenoms are Cheap and Fast, and the Es are Low Power. Personally, I'd at least like to see Low Power and Fast, or Low Power and Cheap. I don't see why the low power chips are suddenly being priced so high, they should at least be close to the price point of similar performance non-low power chips, a little bit more expensive is understandable, but the markup on them now is just insane. Intel and AMD are both guilty of this... You car example is flawed. A Ferrari is a completely different car from a ford, for the most part at least... A Ferrari is fast and expensive, a Ford cheap(relatively). Of course, this ignores the Super Snake, which at ~$75,000 is very close to being as fast as a Ferrari for a fraction of the price. And ignoring all that, you are comparing to different companies in two completely different markets. Here we are comparing a single company, producing products for the same market. A better anology would be Toyota trying to sell the Camery Hybrid for $10,000 more than the XLE. As it is now, the Hybrid is slighly more expensive, but not outragously so, only about $250.
I don't think I see any point, sir. Why don't Ferraris cost the same as Fords? Ferrari seriously needs to make a car that costs the same as a Ford.
by johnnyfiive (3:03 PM) - Reply
BE or not, they all seem to overclock about the same. My 920 reached the same clocks as a 940 would. The 945's are a hell of a bargain IMO. Cheaper than a 955 but should reach similar clocks. Plus, you will be HT oc'ing which yields better performance across the board, litearlly. :)
by TheMailMan78 (3:05 PM) - Reply
You guys are talking about Mustangs. I must be involved. Whos side am I on? newtekie1 or mdm-adph?
yay there it is finaly lol
by: newtekie1That 965 had alot of incorect info to begin with most of that is mobo manus fault and the web going apesh!t over early info. They anounced they got it down to 95w/3.0 a while ago. (2 months?) I think they have been testing it all this time. 975 should be awesome. The first batch of 965 WILL be 125w and the second.. And yes its 100% sure lol
Hopefully this means that whole issue with the 140w barrier isn't really an issue. Maybe the first batch of 965s will be 140w, but hopefully they can release a second batch that is 125w, and something higher than the 965 that pushs back up to 140w.
by: TheMailMan78rofl rofl
You guys are talking about Mustangs. I must be involved. Whos side am I on? newtekie1 or mdm-adph?[/url]
by: newtekie1Wasn't necessarily comparing Ford and Ferarri cars -- I was comparing Ford and Ferarri buyers (which are completely different). My point is that enthusiasts (like we have here) shouldn't be complaining about the price of E parts, just like I don't think E-part buyers complain about the wattage of enthusiast parts. They're for different markets. My problem isn't anything to do with E-parts -- it's that the poster seemed to imply that the exact same E-part chip could be made better simply by not making it an E-part chip. And the Super Snake's not a Ford -- it's a Shelby. :D
I didn't say I agreed with is point, I was just explaining what he meant. He wants the best of all worlds: Cheap, Low Power, and Fast. The normal Phenoms are Cheap and Fast, and the Es are Low Power. Personally, I'd at least like to see Low Power and Fast, or Low Power and Cheap. I don't see why the low power chips are suddenly being priced so high, they should at least be close to the price point of similar performance non-low power chips, a little bit more expensive is understandable, but the markup on them now is just insane. Intel and AMD are both guilty of this... You car example is flawed. A Ferrari is a completely different car from a ford, for the most part at least... A Ferrari is fast and expensive, a Ford cheap(relatively). Of course, this ignores the Super Snake, which at ~$75,000 is very close to being as fast as a Ferrari for a fraction of the price. And ignoring all that, you are comparing to different companies in two completely different markets. Here we are comparing a single company, producing products for the same market. A better anology would be Toyota trying to sell the Camery Hybrid for $10,000 more than the XLE. As it is now, the Hybrid is slighly more expensive, but not outragously so, only about $250.
by: TheMailMan78You will NOT take my side. I don't even care if you agree with me. :laugh:
You guys are talking about Mustangs. I must be involved. Whos side am I on? newtekie1 or mdm-adph? http://www.justanothergamingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/875694-nerd_rage_super.jpg
by: mdm-adphI have owned 2 E parts 4850e and 9100e they both overclock good on low voltage and run stupidly cool at stock :laugh:
Yeah, and that's why no one in their right mind should be buying E parts for their clock speeds. :wtf: That's not the point. :laugh:
