Thread titleFromLast replied
Now searching...
Neoseeker Forums » » Hardware, Builds and Overclocking » Phenom 9900 Review » Post Reply

Note to Guests: Advertising of any kind is not allowed in these forums!If you fix your problem on your own, please post a message describing how you fixed the issue so that others with a similar problem can use your method to fix their issue.
REPLY TO A THREAD
Name:* Members, please LOGIN before posting
Email: We use this to display your Gravatar

Sign in with
Subject:*
Message:*


HTML is not allowed
markup is allowed

Help with markup tags

Enabling Buttons in IE7




Smilies:
  ·all smilies here
:) :P ;) :( :| ;( :D :confused: :cool: :# :o ^_^ :colored: :thick:

hideOriginal Post

Dec 19, 07 at 5:00ambhenning


Yes guys, another Phenom review!

And this time... the chip is a lot more competitive.

AMD Phenom 9900 Review

Thread Recap (last 10 posts from newest to oldest)

Dec 29, 07 at 9:04am
skatcat31


Well right now it's got the B2 bug, but wait for B3, and it will destroy intell. Again.



Dec 25, 07 at 11:04pm
Hiko Seijuro


is the 9900 realy as it was ment to be.. or are they pullin old intell spiting things out before finalizing it...



Dec 24, 07 at 6:53am
skatcat31


It doesn't state that they used the patch or not, it jsut mentions it. Also the TLB patch is a great way to elp keep your stepping stable, een a the performance hit.

Two things to keep in mind:
1. Wait for hte B3 stepping. Seirously
2. The intell won because it's a higher standard chip, meant to be for gamers. The Phenom was meant for buisinessed, althgouh stil nice.
3. Wait for hte Pheonix, or whatever the gaming desktop edition will be called now.



Dec 22, 07 at 2:14am
enumae


Could you tell me if this review was done with the TLB patch applied?

If I had missed where you clarified this my apologies.

Thanks



Dec 20, 07 at 7:24pm
skatcat31


I've gotta say, this is a nicer test then the one for the 9600. Unfortinatly from the reveiw of the MSI board, I knew there were problems there, and my ugly tired reared head showed itself. however for these results I'm acutally muc mroe satisfied. Now only to wait for B3 stepping ot get rid of the problems and yet again, AMD will sit kindly ontop. they may take long, but having native quad core, it kinda makes intell look silly. Also remember, windows does do auto stepping during performance riddled tasks. I've found windows overclocking my CPU before from 2.0 Ghz x2, to 2.56 Ghz x2, something not even my bios could do with my RAM chip...(which makes me wonder). Also it's nice to finely see that AMD is yet again putting ocnsideration into their chips instead of just putting mroe di onto single chips. YAY FOR HEAT ENVELOPES! For hte fact that it obtained 3.0Ghz with the stock cooler, im mightly impressed and can only wait for hte next generation stepping to build my next rig. DDR3 AMD buisiness benchmarks anyone?

edit: also cisco kid, the xenon was more for price range refence and if you compare the stock timings, it's a good reference at that. In the same price range, nothing kept up with the AMD phenom. Overclockign it, well that's something more users do on their own. In fact it was even stated they included it purely for the fact that it was in the same price range. Of course an unlocked 1000 USD chip is gonna trounce something that's nto even half it's price. Jsut wait untill AMD releases the Phenom FX. didn't they tought the new FX name ot be Phenox? or Phenoix or something... I could never remember my mythical creatures... and to think I saw a unicorn the other day.



Dec 20, 07 at 12:45am
bhenning


I compared to the quad core results I had from previous results; and the comparison was based on stock speeds.

ofcourse an overclocked X3210 will beat an overclocked Phenom 9900 - read my review of the X3210 if you want to see the stable OC I achieved - but that was not the intent of the review, the intent was to compare stock performance, and see how high the 9900 would clock up.

I included the higher priced QX6700 as it runs at almost exactly the same stock speed, and I was frankly surprised as to how well the 9900 held up against that much more expensive chip.

quote cisco kid
The review is klinda lame, we are talking about a $350 cpu against $247 xeon x3210. Of course at stock speeds one can not expect the xeon 3210 to compete with a core speed of 2.13 vs 2.6 come on. However the 3210 would smoke the Phenom had you been fair and overclocked it, they are easily capable of running 3.5-3.6 if a G0 stepping. Mine is running 3.4 rock solid on default vcore with 4,4,4,12 1T using GSkill HZ PC6400 on a 680i evga sli board, with one bump in vcore I have 3.5 solid

I would love to see results with all chips overclocked cause Phenom would be clearly smashed by a 3210 at $100 less





Dec 20, 07 at 12:42am
bhenning


Thank you for the correction!

I looked at the wrong bar on the chart. Mistakes happen... I'm correcting the article.

Best,

Bill

quote dricks
quote
TMPGEnc

The Phenom 9900 beats both the Core 2 Quad QX6700 and the Xeon X3210 at stock speeds here!
Since when does 284s (Phenom@stock) is better than 268s (QX6700) and 282s (X3210) when comparing encoding time?





Dec 20, 07 at 12:11am
cisco kid


The review is klinda lame, we are talking about a $350 cpu against $247 xeon x3210. Of course at stock speeds one can not expect the xeon 3210 to compete with a core speed of 2.13 vs 2.6 come on. However the 3210 would smoke the Phenom had you been fair and overclocked it, they are easily capable of running 3.5-3.6 if a G0 stepping. Mine is running 3.4 rock solid on default vcore with 4,4,4,12 1T using GSkill HZ PC6400 on a 680i evga sli board, with one bump in vcore I have 3.5 solid

I would love to see results with all chips overclocked cause Phenom would be clearly smashed by a 3210 at $100 less




Dec 19, 07 at 11:34pm
dricks


quote
TMPGEnc

The Phenom 9900 beats both the Core 2 Quad QX6700 and the Xeon X3210 at stock speeds here!
Since when does 284s (Phenom@stock) is better than 268s (QX6700) and 282s (X3210) when comparing encoding time?




Dec 19, 07 at 7:13pm
bhenning


The text by the charts, and in the conclusion, was comparing stock speed results. The overclocked results were also shown, and clearly identified with "200x15" on the bar chart labels.

Thanks for the heads-up. I fixed the few minor labeling errors.

quote BFELLOW
You need to make it clear that one of the 9900's is overclocked to 3.00ghz and all the inaccurate statements about the Q6700s losing to the 9900 at stock speed in a few of these graphs. You also confuse the 9600, 9900, and Q6700 in some of your statements.


This message was edited by bhenning on Dec 19 2007.



Powered by neoforums v2.2.0c (toro)
Copyright Neo Era Media, Inc. 1999-2014

Neoseeker.com   |   Forum Rules   |   Forum FAQ   |   Neoseeker Terms of Use   |   Supermods On Duty [ server id: web8 ··· elapsed: 0.1180]
Chat and Lounges
Game Platforms
Mobile Platforms