Saturday, June 27th 2009

AMD Readying Phenom II X4 965

Following its roadmap, AMD is continuing with new processor releases based on the Deneb core with increases in the multiplier. The Phenom II X4 965 comes with a clock speed of 3.40 GHz, and an FSB multiplier of 17.0x, giving it a 200 MHz increase over the 955 Black Edition. It is not known if 965 comes in a Black Edition branding, one which could determine its pricing. If launched as a Black Edition (version with unlocked bus multiplier), It could either be priced above the 955, or could displace it and position itself at US $249.99. Without the BE branding it could be priced slightly lower. The new chip will be based on the AM3 package, supporting DDR3 1333 MHz and DDR2 1066 MHz. It comes at a time when AMD is releasing the RS880-based AMD 785G chipset. AMD will dispatch samples of the Phenom II X4 965 starting next week. Source: Tweaktown
Add your own comment

102 Comments on AMD Readying Phenom II X4 965

#76
Meizuman
IIRC, AMD had worse CPU scores in 3DMark with Nvidia GPU.
Posted on Reply
#77
Flyordie
Anyone else heard that AMD plans on labeling the 965 a Black Edition after all and dropping the 955?
Posted on Reply
#78
n-ster
perhaps something was wrong with your tests tastegw, but obviously get are false... without more specifics, we won't be able to tell you, but there is no way a PII 940 at 3.7 doesn't beat a stock i7... indeed, it seems you have ignored the proof cdawall provided...

Anyone know how powerful the PII 965 can be? and how about that new chipset... :p
Posted on Reply
#79
trt740
snakeoil
give it up, nobody believes what you said not even you, if you want to learn go to review sites and learn a little. and then speak based on reality , and move on
I believe him and hes not wrong you are the phenom II will beat a I7 in something but 90 percent of the time it won't, a core 2 duo maybe but not a I7 and I have had a PII 940 and a ES 945 and they cannot touch these I7 chips unless they are overclocked above the I7 stock clocks by about 800 to 900 mghz. The PhII is about as fast as a Q9550 at the same clock speeds maybe a little faster.
Posted on Reply
#80
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
trt740
I believe him and hes not wrong you are the phenom II will beat a I7 in something but 90 percent of the time it won't, a core 2 duo maybe but not a I7 and I have had a PII 940 and a ES 945 and they cannot touch these I7 chips unless they are overclocked above the I7 stock clocks by about 800 to 900 mghz. The PhII is about as fast as a Q9550 at the same clock speeds maybe a little faster.
thats the thing trt the phenom was at 3.7ghz and he said his i7 at stock 2.66ghz was still beating it :confused: i can think of one or two apps that would happen in and one of them is super pi
Posted on Reply
#81
trt740
cdawall
thats the thing trt the phenom was at 3.7ghz and he said his i7 at stock 2.66ghz was still beating it :confused: i can think of one or two apps that would happen in and one of them is super pi
Even at stock the I7 would be close to a PHII ddr2 system at 3.7ghz but I can think of a few things a PH II would beat it one is MP3 conversion. Remember a true I7 920 for all intensive puropses is really 2.8 ghz not 2.6ghz because of turbo.
Posted on Reply
#82
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
trt740
Even at stock the I7 would be close to a PHII ddr2 system at 3.7ghz but I can think of a few things a PH II would beat it one is MP3 conversion. Remember a true I7 920 for all intensive puropses is really 2.8 ghz not 2.6ghz because of turbo.
thats still 900mhz to the AMD side and DDR2 1066 cas5 can keep pretty close to DDR3

i can think of one and thats 3Dmark which he compared otherwise we wouldn't have seen so many records on AMD's until the D0 Xeons of course lol 5.5ghz i7 is insane :toast:
Posted on Reply
#83
trt740
cdawall
thats still 900mhz to the AMD side and DDR2 1066 cas5 can keep pretty close to DDR3

i can think of one and thats 3Dmark which he compared otherwise we wouldn't have seen so many records on AMD's until the D0 Xeons of course lol 5.5ghz i7 is insane :toast:
From what I see a AMD chip at 3.8 with fast DDR3 would be a match for a I7 920 with fast DDR3 but even at 3.4 ghz (which is a very tiny overclock) it would kill the AMD chip in all but a few synthetic Applications / benchmarks.. In games the AMD chip would do very well and in the real world I doubt you could ever tell them a part. The AMD chips for real world use are just as fast. If you didn't tell a person which one was powered by which you wouldn't know. Think of the new AMD chips as lightning fast and then think of the new Intel chips as lightening fast plus 20 percent (in benches) both are lightening fast. In my opinion lightening fast is lightening fast. :D buy which ever is cheaper and spend the rest on your GPU, because both brands are fast enough to un bottleneck even the mighty 295 gtx
Posted on Reply
#84
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
trt740
From what I see a AMD chip at 3.8 with fast DDR3 would be a match for a I7 920 with fast DDR3 but even at 3.4 ghz (which is a very tiny overclock) it would kill the AMD chip in all but a few synthetic Applications / benchmarks.. In games the AMD chip would do very well and in the real world I doubt you could ever tell them a part. The AMD chips for real world use are just as fast. If you didn't tell a person which one was powered by which you wouldn't know. Think of the new AMD chips as lightning fast and then think of the new Intel chips as lightening fast plus 20 percent (in benches) both are lighting fast. In my opinion lighting fast is lightening fast. :D
true oh well guess i can't complain to much i'm running my poor little X4 910@3.7ghz not bad for a stock clock of 2.6ghz

god if you read my specs it looks like i don't know anything but ATI and AMD lol whats sad is i like NV better but get this stuff so much cheaper
Posted on Reply
#85
trt740
cdawall
true oh well guess i can't complain to much i'm running my poor little X4 910@3.7ghz not bad for a stock clock of 2.6ghz
and thats very fast.
Posted on Reply
#86
Mussels
Moderprator
snakeoil
you heard what eidairaman1 said, get out.
last time i checked, you aren't a moderator. Please don't act like one.
Posted on Reply
#87
tastegw
the reason im ignoring that review that was given, is i have/had the stuff. for all we know they were running the ddr3 1600 ram @ stock (1066), and that is alot slower than it would be at its rated speed.

but i was able to find one of my phenom's old scores for '05, but it was with the phenom @ 3.5...

so to be fair i benched my i7 with ram running a slow 1066.

here is the results.


thats a 1000mhz advantage by the phenom, and it still ate the dust.

i dont know why some of you are angry at me for actually showing and stating my facts.
there is no better review than your own.
Posted on Reply
#88
Mussels
Moderprator
what 3dmark is that?

if possible, find us a benchie of something thats not totally useless... like a game.
Posted on Reply
#89
Wile E
Power User
Mussels
what 3dmark is that?

if possible, find us a benchie of something thats not totally useless... like a game.
A game is totally useless to use to compare cpu power. He's showing the difference in cpu power, not gaming.
Posted on Reply
#90
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Wile E
A game is totally useless to use to compare cpu power. He's showing the difference in cpu power, not gaming.
thats fine but compare the same GPU because that can and will skew the hell out of the results

Posted on Reply
#91
Yukikaze
cdawall
thats fine but compare the same GPU because that can and will skew the hell out of the results
Well, not if you are comparing the CPU results (PhysX aside, but the 920 didn't have a PhysX able card anyway)...
Posted on Reply
#92
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Yukikaze
Well, not if you are comparing the CPU results (PhysX aside, but the 920 didn't have a PhysX able card anyway)...
look closer at the scores one is on vista 32 the other on vista 64.
Posted on Reply
#93
Yukikaze
cdawall
look closer at the scores one is on vista 32 the other on vista 64.
I was under the impression that would have an absolutely minute effect, if any, and definitely not one sufficient to compensate for something like 1Ghz of clock advantage. Am I wrong ?
Posted on Reply
#94
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
Yukikaze
I was under the impression that would have an absolutely minute effect, if any, and definitely not one sufficient to compensate for something like 1Ghz of clock advantage. Am I wrong ?
yea it makes a pretty big difference
Posted on Reply
#95
Mussels
Moderprator
Yukikaze
I was under the impression that would have an absolutely minute effect, if any, and definitely not one sufficient to compensate for something like 1Ghz of clock advantage. Am I wrong ?
the address space limitations could drastically affect the score. I dont know if it DOES with these programs, but its certainly within the realm of possibility.

You're talking a different OS with different drivers anyway - doesnt matter if they're the same version number, there can be differences between x86 and x64 we dont know about.
Posted on Reply
#96
tastegw
cdawall
look closer at the scores one is on vista 32 the other on vista 64.
both systems are on 64-bit vista.
Posted on Reply
#97
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
tastegw
wow, you do it again, speaking out your rear.

both systems are on 64-bit vista.
no i read the benchmark page the AMD only see's 3840mb of ram while the intl see's 6144mb either you lost 256MB of ram to thin air or its on 32bit vista
Posted on Reply
#98
tastegw
cdawall
no i read the benchmark page the AMD only see's 3840mb of ram while the intl see's 6144mb either you lost 256MB of ram to thin air or its on 32bit vista
that was just how it was read. I can assure you both were 64-bit.

here is the link to my 940's vantage score

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=780146

check for yourself

same ram was used.
Posted on Reply
#99
trt740
This whole discussion is useless in the real world you would be hard pressed to tell them apart . I have had both trust me they are both screaming fast end this already. For real world use one doesn't hold a giant advantage over the other. If I had a AM2/ AM3 rig I wouldn't sell it to buy a I7 rig it's a waste of time. I know this because I did it. Buy what cheaper or whats the easiest upgrade path.
Posted on Reply
#100
Wile E
Power User
trt740
This whole discussion is useless in the real world you would be hard pressed to tell them apart . I have had both trust me they are both screaming fast end this already. For real world use one doesn't hold a giant advantage over the other. If I had a AM2/ AM3 rig I wouldn't sell it to buy a I7 rig it's a waste of time. I know this because I did it. Buy what cheaper or whats the easiest upgrade path.
No thanks. I'll buy the fastest. :D I would see a difference, as I do a lot of H.264 transcoding.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment