Thursday, July 23rd 2009

AMD Silently Intros 95W Phenom II X4 945

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.
Add your own comment

46 Comments on AMD Silently Intros 95W Phenom II X4 945

#1
mdm-adph
p_o_s_pc said:
I have owned 2 E parts 4850e and 9100e they both overclock good on low voltage and run stupidly cool at stock :laugh:
I'm sure they do -- however, you didn't buy them for their stock clock speeds -- you bought them for their "overclockability," which I'm sure they excell at.
Posted on Reply
#2
joshiers8605
either way, i don't think it's bad processor, would be nice to upgrade to it
Posted on Reply
#3
p_o_s_pc
F@H&WCG addict
mdm-adph said:
I'm sure they do -- however, you didn't buy them for their stock clock speeds -- you bought them for their "overclockability," which I'm sure they excell at.
that is true i didn't buy them for stock clocks. The 9100e was stock 1.8ghz and the 4850e stock 2.5ghz :laugh: the 4850e has to be the best CPU(when it comes to overclockablity) i have owned so far.
Posted on Reply
#4
Easo
Good for cheap mobos... :)
Posted on Reply
#5
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
mdm-adph said:
Wasn'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
It isn't just the price we are complaining about, it is the price paired with the performance. If you take the same chip and lower the TDP, and raise the price, that is fine. However, lowering performance at the same time while raising the price isn't right, IMO. The old EE chips at least stayed at the same performance level. My 939 4400+ was an "EE" with a lower TDP. However, it was still identical to a standard 4400+. You didn't have to sacrifice performance for lower wattage. I don't really think it is that great of a feat to have a 905e or 910e, what are you getting for the extra money exactly? All they did was lower the stock speed to lower the power usage. Anyone could take a 925, lower the multipler and voltage and achieve the same thing. Why does that require a price premium? What are you getting with an E series exactly?

And the Super Snake is a Shelby Modded Ford, if I owned one, and god I wish I did, I would still say I drive a Ford...

mdm-adph said:
I'm sure they do -- however, you didn't buy them for their stock clock speeds -- you bought them for their "overclockability," which I'm sure they excell at.
I'm sure the people buying them at least consider the stock speeds. As I've said before, essentially you are getting nothing for the price premium that you couldn't do yourself. The E or EE series used to be something special, now it isn't. You aren't getting anything special for your money. The processors are exactly the same, they just run slower, and a result of that is lower power usage. There is nothing special about the chips.
Posted on Reply
#6
mdm-adph
newtekie1 said:
It isn't just the price we are complaining about, it is the price paired with the performance. If you take the same chip and lower the TDP, and raise the price, that is fine. However, lowering performance at the same time while raising the price isn't right, IMO. The old EE chips at least stayed at the same performance level. My 939 4400+ was an "EE" with a lower TDP. However, it was still identical to a standard 4400+. You didn't have to sacrifice performance for lower wattage. I don't really think it is that great of a feat to have a 905e or 910e, what are you getting for the extra money exactly? All they did was lower the stock speed to lower the power usage. Anyone could take a 925, lower the multipler and voltage and achieve the same thing. Why does that require a price premium? What are you getting with an E series exactly?

And the Super Snake is a Shelby Modded Ford, if I owned one, and god I wish I did, I would still say I drive a Ford...
Well, I was under the impression that these chips were at least binned more specifically -- less power leakage or something, at least. :ohwell:

And a Shelby isn't a Ford, no matter what it starts out as. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#7
TheMailMan78
Big Member
newtekie1 said:


And the Super Snake is a Shelby Modded Ford, if I owned one, and god I wish I did, I would still say I drive a Ford...
You used to say you hated Mustangs.

Anyway.....95w or 140w it doesn't matter. Its got a locked multi. This is not an "enthusiast" CPU.

mdm-adph said:

And a Shelby isn't a Ford, no matter what it starts out as. :laugh:
Most Shelbys now are production runs. These are not the Shelbys of old. The Super Snake in fact is just a kit now.
Posted on Reply
#8
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
mdm-adph said:
Well, I was under the impression that these chips were at least binned more specifically -- less power leakage or something, at least. :ohwell:

And a Shelby isn't a Ford, no matter what it starts out as. :laugh:
I don't think they are, as a binned chip should be able to do the same clock speeds with just lower voltages, and hence lower power usage. These chips require lower clock speeds to run at the lower voltages, so I don't see how they are binned.

And throwing a couple after market parts on it doesn't transform it into a Shelby. Ford built the car, Shelby just threw a supercharger and a body kit on it...

When Billy Bob throws a turbo, a body kit, and a shitty exhaust on his Honda Civic, I don't call it a "Billy Bob Civic"...

TheMailMan78 said:
You used to say you hated Mustangs.

Anyway.....95w or 140w it doesn't matter. Its got a locked multi. This is not an "enthusiast" CPU.

Most Shelbys now are production runs. These are not the Shelbys of old. The Super Snake in fact is just a kit now.
I do hate Mustangs...but I still wouldn't mind owning a Super Snake. Just like I hate Corvettes, but I wouldn't mind owning a ZR1.

My tremendous respect for what these cars are prevents me from not wanting one.
Posted on Reply
#9
$ReaPeR$
wouldnt it be nice if both companies produced only 1 kind of cpu powerful energy efficient and cheap!!!!!
Posted on Reply
#10
TheMailMan78
Big Member
$ReaPeR$ said:
wouldnt it be nice if both companies produced only 1 kind of cpu powerful energy efficient and cheap!!!!!
No. No it wouldn't. DOWN WITH SOCIALISM!
Posted on Reply
#11
mdm-adph
newtekie1 said:
I don't think they are, as a binned chip should be able to do the same clock speeds with just lower voltages, and hence lower power usage. These chips require lower clock speeds to run at the lower voltages, so I don't see how they are binned.
I'd have to see some tests to agree with that -- someone should take these E part chips and put them up against similarly clocked "regular" chips and see what power's being drawn.

newtekie1 said:

And throwing a couple after market parts on it doesn't transform it into a Shelby. Ford built the car, Shelby just threw a supercharger and a body kit on it...

When Billy Bob throws a turbo, a body kit, and a shitty exhaust on his Honda Civic, I don't call it a "Billy Bob Civic"...
Yeah, but Billy Bob doesn't make his own cars, either, from the ground up:



If Shelby wants to put his name on a car, then to me, it's not right to call it by its old name. :D
Posted on Reply
#12
tastegw
newtekie, you say you hate vetts, how can you hate this?



1978 stingray
Posted on Reply
#13
p_o_s_pc
F@H&WCG addict
tastegw that vett is my dream car and has been since i was just alittle boy :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#15
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Please get back to the topic people.
Posted on Reply
#16
$ReaPeR$
TheMailMan78 said:
No. No it wouldn't. DOWN WITH SOCIALISM!
its not socialism mate. if they only produced 2 cpus the quantity alone would be sufficient to lower the cost and the price.
Posted on Reply
#17
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
mdm-adph said:
I'd have to see some tests to agree with that -- someone should take these E part chips and put them up against similarly clocked "regular" chips and see what power's being drawn.
Yeah, me too. I'm guessing the difference wouldn't be all that great, if any. I would like to see if the regular chip could sucessfully be stable at the lower voltage of the E chip also.
Posted on Reply
#18
TheMailMan78
Big Member
$ReaPeR$ said:
its not socialism mate. if they only produced 2 cpus the quantity alone would be sufficient to lower the cost and the price.
If they produced only 2 CPUs that were identical in spec they could charge whatever they wanted. Until the EU stepped in and said they charge to much and force them to sell at fixed price. I'm sure a lot of dumb asses in the U.S. would jump right in too.

With Intel and AMD constantly trying to win customers the only people who win is the customer. If we can only pick one CPU. One green and one blue who wins?

btarunr said:
Please get back to the topic people.
Wasn't me this time :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#20
p_o_s_pc
F@H&WCG addict
newtekie1 said:
Yeah, me too. I'm guessing the difference wouldn't be all that great, if any. I would like to see if the regular chip could sucessfully be stable at the lower voltage of the E chip also.
about 2 years ago i have a x2 4600(regular) It would ALMOST run at the same voltage as the x2 4600e(both same clock speed) I ran 1.25v on stock speeds but when it came to overclocking the E chip kicked the ship out of it don't know if it still holds true today or not but it did then
Posted on Reply
#21
joshiers8605
the longer you wait, the lower the prices, but who likes to wait? *is impatient sometimes*
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment