AMD had to overcome a few hiccups in the initial Phenom launch and revisit its pricing to stay competitive with Intel in the Core 2 era, but AMD's back in the game with the new Phenom II processor. It's not exactly a knockout blow, but the Phenom II X4 has the right price and enough performance to do some damage.

This year AMD will ship two new quad-core Phenom II X4 processors, the 940 Black Edition and the 920, clocked at 3.0GHz and 2.8GHz, respectively. Black Edition processors come with an unlocked multiplier setting to make overclocking easier for PC enthusiasts. The processors differ only in clock speed, and have identical specifications otherwise. The Phenom II X4 processors will come with 64K of L1 instruction and 64K of L1 data cache per core (512KB total L1 per processor), and 512KB of L2 data cache per core (2MB total L2 per processor). The processors will also have a shared 6MB L3 cache and will feature an onboard DDR2 memory controller with 17.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

Built on a 45nm manufacturing process, the processors will have a relatively cool maximum thermal-dissipation value of 125 watts. Cool 'n' Quiet 3.0, AMD's power-management solution, keeps the Phenom II X4 chilly during periods of inactivity. AMD states that the CPU will now use 50 percent less energy while idle in comparison to Cool 'n' Quiet 2.0.

In a move sure to make existing Phenom owners happy, Phenom II X4 processors will be backward compatible with existing AM2+ motherboards. Motherboard manufacturers will release BIOS updates to ensure compatibility. As a follow-up in early 2009, AMD will release AM3 socket-based Phenom II X4 and X3 processors. Both will also be backward compatible with current AM2+ motherboards and will support both DDR2 and DDR3 memory.

AMD also bundles the Fusion and Overdrive utilities with the processors. Fusion helps to improve gaming performance by disabling scores of Windows services and slightly overclocking the entire system. AMD's Overdrive utility helps to automatically overclock the system and lets users apply those settings on an application-specific level. Overdrive helped bumped our Black Edition up to a final speed of 3333MHz when we tried it out.

The new Phenom II X4 processors will be available immediately in quantity. Expect to find the Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition retailing for $275, and the Phenom II X4 920 at $235.

From the pricing angle, the best direct competitor to the Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition is Intel's 2.66GHz Core 2 Quad Q9400, a quad-core processor with 6MB of L2 cache. Intel's Core i7 920 sits at a similar price point, but the total cost of ownership is much higher for the i7 after you factor in the cost of the motherboard and memory. The i7 processor requires DDR3 memory and a motherboard with an LGA 1366 socket. DDR3 memory costs roughly twice as much as DDR2. AM2+-based motherboards start in the $50 range and cap off at $200, whereas LGA socket 1366 boards start at $200 and can run as high as $400.

We didn't have Intel's 2.66GHz Core 2 Quad Q9400 processor on hand for our comparison. Instead, we clocked our Core 2 Extreme QX6800 with 8MB of L2 cache down to 2.66GHz and put it up against the Phenom II X4 940 to see how the chips stack up.

AMD Phenom II X4 940 Performance

(Longer bars indicate better performance except in WME9 where shorter bars indicate faster encoding time)

3DMark Vantage, Performance Test, CPU Score

AMD Phenom II X4 940
10275
Intel Core 2 QX6800 @ 2.66GHz
9366
AMD Phenom 9600
7449

Valve Particle Test, 1024x768

AMD Phenom II X4 940
85
Intel Core 2 QX6800 @ 2.66GHz
84
AMD Phenom 9600
64

Crysis, Medium Quality, 1024x748

AMD Phenom II X4 940
49
Intel Core 2 QX6800 @ 2.66GHz
47
AMD Phenom 9600
33

Crysis, High Quality, 1600x1200

AMD Phenom II X4 940
32
Intel Core 2 QX6800 @ 2.66GHz
32
AMD Phenom 9600
22

Crysis, 1024x768, Medium Quality (With Simultaneous WME9 Video Encode)

AMD Phenom II X4 940
49
Intel Core 2 QX6800 @ 2.66GHz
44
AMD Phenom 9600
31

WME9 Video Encode (With Simultaneous Crysis, 1024x768, Medium Quality)

AMD Phenom II X4 940
13.46
Intel Core 2 QX6800 @ 2.66GHz
11:53
AMD Phenom 9600
20.10

AMD's newest processor competes favorably against processors in its class. If we could fill in the spot where Intel's Q9400 sits, we're sure that the Phenom II X4 940 would outperform it. In 3DMark Vantage, the Phenom II X4 940 handily beat our down-clocked QX6800 with 8MB of cache by nearly 1,000 points. The Phenom II X4 940 tied the QX6800 in Crysis and Valve's particle test. On our simultaneous encode and Crysis test, the Phenom II X4 940 outperformed the Intel chip in Crysis by a handful of frames, but it stumbled in the encode time.

Overall, the Phenom II X4 looks to be a great purchase if you're upgrading. It keeps up gaming-wise with Intel's Core lineup and holds its own in intense processing situations. Backward compatibility with AM2+ motherboards gives existing users an easy and affordable upgrade path. The promise of future backward compatibility only sweetens the deal.

System Setup: AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition, AMD Phenom X4 9600, Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 @ 2.66GHz. MSI DKA790GX, eVGA 780i, 750GB, Corsair 2GB DDR2 RAM, Seagate 7200.10 SATA Hard Disk Drive. Windows Vista 32-bit SP1. Radeon HD 4800. Video card driver: beta Catalyst 8.561.3.081217a.73702.

216 Comments

  • xialon

    Posted Aug 15, 2009 9:31 pm GMT

    AMD was my savior when I was building my computer.

  • lowkey999

    Posted Aug 14, 2009 8:03 am GMT

    i like this processor and i wish i own it to team up with my GeForce GTX 280 SLI

  • Ypsteven

    Posted Mar 25, 2009 4:01 pm GMT

    The performance is relative dont know its getting to a point where you cant really tell the difference between intel standard chips and amd, however for the hardcore/enthusiast people im sure you know your money is with the i7 regardless of price they're good. Whereas for the normal people we now have choice if you get a full amd platform gpu as well you can get some more than price competitive performance from them.

  • DerekLStinson

    Posted Mar 24, 2009 5:42 pm GMT

    When you live in a free market everything comes down to price point. If you two computers that can run a game equally, but one costs cheaper which one would you choose?

  • SiNoNaX

    Posted Mar 24, 2009 6:19 am GMT

    @Sunnykat

    Its clear you don't know what your taking about. When comparing CPUs its not entirely correct to compare CPUs with equivalent clock speed when they have entirely different architectures. Its not about clock speed its about throughput.

    Based on your comment I guess the P4 @ 3.0 should be compared to the Phenom II @ 3.0 . Ignorance is a bliss , I suggest you keep your comments to yourself before talking about any "technical details". You were doing alright until you stopped accusing me of being a fan boy.

  • neonblueshadow

    Posted Mar 23, 2009 8:42 pm GMT

    I'll wait for the AM3 socket chips, and their prices before deciding to switch to i7 or try this one.

  • SunnyKatt

    Posted Mar 22, 2009 11:42 am GMT

    SiNoNaX, Please shut up. You are a whiny fanboy, whether you like it or not.

    Ahem, The only problem I had with this review is that they were comparing the intel one @ 2.66 to the amd @ 3.0... so of course the AMD one will do better. Sure, the memory on the processor counts and all, but honestly, why did they knock it down that low and try to compare them?

  • SiNoNaX

    Posted Mar 20, 2009 8:35 am GMT

    @a_mop65 You are right, but at the end of the day it comes down to the consumers budget. Some people don't notice \$400 less in their pockets while others do.

    Some of us still like to flex some e-peen muscle even if its the stupid thing to do.

  • a_mop265

    Posted Mar 13, 2009 7:22 pm GMT

    ok ya i know what many of you are saying about how the phenom ii can't come near the i7
    truth is your right but really when the price is so much cheaper for the amd flavor i know that's the smart move
    i mean most of us are using this for games and if about like \$400 difference (at least) to get maybe about 90 fps instead of 60 (which your not going to notice easily) in this bad economic time
    amd is the winner in my mind

  • SiNoNaX

    Posted Mar 9, 2009 1:00 am GMT

    @SEAL_team_six

    Sigh... another retard that starts his argument with "stupid Intel fanboys". First of all I dont give a crap about AMD or Intel. Whichever gives me more performance for my buck, I go with. Or do you just copy/paste that into every discussion you get into on the Gamespot boards, fanboy this fanboy that. Anyways whatever.

    Second of all I do not see anywhere in my last statement that I was discussing "budget" PC's? I don't care if you can make a build that cost you 2 bucks, and from the pricing I stated you could clearly tell that I wasn't talking about a budget PC. Third of all you come in here about 1 month after my comment when pricing is clearly different then it was 1 month ago especially with the mobos(and I happened to use a 400 buck one in my comparison). Phenom II scores 10275 vs a 16352 for the i7 920, which is a mighty difference for an enthusiast builder, and on water-cooling AMD's 940 is overclocking up to 3.8 - 3.9 and the i7's are getting 4.0-4.2 (4.3 in some extremely lucky cases) . Your talking budget , I'm talking about bang for buck at enthusiast settings.Two entirely different things, hence your ignorance aggravates me. Yes I know the Phenom II 940 is not on the same tier as the i7 and can't be compared but it still remains as AMD's flagship processor that happens to aim at the lower spectrum end of the market.

    "When you compare performance between the CPU's,you'll see how much you screwed yourself over when you are spending less on the graphics." I'm more interested in CPU bottlenecks. We are talking about CPU's here and not graphic cards (hence they were not included in my comparison). As for how defensive you are in your post , it seems that you are the fanboy, kid. Go have fun with your "l33t" talk and troll another post.

  • kraken2109

    Posted Mar 8, 2009 5:59 am GMT

    The problem with lots of CPU comparisons between intel and AMD is that they compare based on clock speed. E.g. 2.6ghz intel with a 2.6ghz AMD. What they should be doing is comparing by price. Then you see that most AMDs are way better value than Intels. Why compare a Phenom II with an I7? The I7 is twice the price of a Phenom II, not to mention the face that to build an I7 pc costs way more anyway because you need DDR3 RAM and certain motherboards. I am not an AMD fanboy, I am simply stating that they are completely different. Phenom II all the way!

  • charleslamb65

    Posted Mar 3, 2009 11:23 pm GMT

    seal team is right. the phenom II isn't for comparing with the the i7 amd havn't got that far yet, but there lookin to compete with the older but still rather expensive core QX series. and intel only just brung out a new £1000 QX chip rescently.

  • SEAL_team_six

    Posted Mar 3, 2009 12:51 pm GMT

    Oscar_rangel/SiNoNaX

    Okay,you're just a bunch of stupid Intel fanboys who don't build computers,clearly.
    I can make a Core i7 920 DDR3/MB/CPU,and it costs a mere ~650 dollars.
    I can make a Core 2/Phenom II DDR2/MB/CPU for ~320 dollars.
    So,as you can see,you're a complete failure when it comes to "X dollar difference" so suck me.
    When you compare performance between the CPU's,you'll see how much you screwed yourself over when you are spending less on the graphics. That is,unless you have 3G to burn until a new computer(which should be in the next few months,by the way)

  • wavex_sync

    Posted Feb 1, 2009 12:28 am GMT

    oh Yes. AMD slowly making its way back up..well, kinda

  • Wolf-5

    Posted Jan 31, 2009 8:53 am GMT

    This chart should be comparing AMD's new CPU with Intel's new CPU, not an old one. The new one is the i7. Lets see how that chart will look like! No one wants to see a chart that is for competitors that is New vs Old.... people want New vs NEW!

  • orcsblade

    Posted Jan 26, 2009 10:51 am GMT

    nice to upgrade to

  • SiNoNaX posted Jan 23, 2009 8:23 am GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    SiNoNaX

    Posted Jan 23, 2009 8:23 am GMT (hide)

    @rattyocaster What is your definition of value? Your comment saying the "AMD route is better value"is a mere fallacy. Comparing an AM2+ mobo / DDR2 / Phenom II x4 940 vs a LGA1366 mobo / DDR3 / Core i7 920 there is only a difference of \$250 bucks. Check the prices for yourself. AMD stated they will be moving to DDR3 Q2 of 2009 so that takes about \$100 off the difference. The processor prices are hardly different give or take \$75. The only advantage AMD has are the cheaper AM2+ boards because they are more readily available then the LGA1366 ones.

    While you save your mere \$150 to get your "better value AMD setup" I'll happily be blowing sh1t up with my core i7 920 overclocked to 3.6 GHz at 5 -10 frames faster then you. What is that you say? 5 -10 frames is not even noticeable? Yes, it is when those frames come at a 60 FPS break point.

    Have a good day sir, enjoy the 7 extra meals you saved at McD's.

  • jetman36

    Posted Jan 21, 2009 2:09 pm GMT

    @ jurassic1024
    I am in no way an AMD fan. When I said the article was biased. I was referring to the idea that the writer was trying to put the new proc. in a good position and make it seem like a reasonable option for a CPU. I'm wasn't saying for the guy to clock the Intel proc back to its stock freq. but to compare the Latest from AMD to the latest from Intel.

  • killik_123

    Posted Jan 20, 2009 10:51 am GMT

    oh didnt notice it had 4 cores

  • killik_123

    Posted Jan 20, 2009 10:38 am GMT

    why does everybody compare all the other processors to the i7 when they are not even within range of the i7 processors

  • rattyocaster

    Posted Jan 19, 2009 12:27 pm GMT

    As the reviewer points out, the i7 chips are faster, however they are much more expensive, especially if you want an all singing and all dancing motherboard, the AMD route is better value. If I had a million pounds and could buy a PC on a whim, I would of course go for the i7 and a top end one at that. In the real world where money matters, AMD is still a competitor.

  • maxgoh

    Posted Jan 18, 2009 4:41 pm GMT

    it is cheap in performance when compare to i7... eat dust AMD!

  • RomisSandthief

    Posted Jan 16, 2009 7:33 am GMT

    Hopefully this means the Phenom I processors should come down in price...Might be an excellent time to upgrade...

  • schinkinator

    Posted Jan 14, 2009 1:21 pm GMT

    I would like to see how it stacks up against an overclocked Q6600 and a Q9400. Also I would like to see a X4 9950 and this thing overclocked.

  • Docturok

    Posted Jan 14, 2009 11:31 am GMT

    A useful review.
    AMD has been my choice for many years now so it's helpful to see what's coming and how it stacks up against previous processors and Intel's units. I like how they're going to be backward compatible... a trend I'd like to see more of when feasible. Mind you it'll mean a new motherboard for me in the event of upgrading. My current board isn't even "AMD+1" let alone AMD+2 ready.
    It looks like a slight performance improvement given the testing conditions and the price set is fair... but I'm thinking I'll give it some more time before I seriously look at upgrading. Competition is good for business. Forces Intel and AMD to try new and better while keeping the $$$$ down.

  • shakall_srb

    Posted Jan 14, 2009 1:38 am GMT

    call me stupid, but I like AMD, no matter if Intel is better and that's cause I like Linux more than Windows. My personal little rebellion

  • SiNoNaX

    Posted Jan 13, 2009 11:50 pm GMT

    @DarthHideous_1 No it seems your missing the point. With the new i7 architecture when multi-cores are not utilized the 3 other cores end up shutting down anyways giving more clock speed on just 1 core. So you get a taste of both worlds with the i7.

    @adamas78 AMD is getting left behind quick, and it seems they opted to win over the lower end market with this chip-set. Nothing to be enthusiastic about. Like you I was hoping AMD gets back into the game but this chip-set doesn't do it.

    Nevertheless for people that want to upgrade from scratch and don't have an AM2+ board, what are they gonna do? \$250 in savings hardly justifies buying an AM2+ board just to pop in a Phenom II x4, and that savings gap is only going to be about \$150(off the mobo) when AMD mitigates to DDR3 in a few months. You guys will have to change to DDR3 sooner or later anyways, so that's hardly an argument that should be included in price comparisons. So that makes me wonder what the hell is AMD thinking with this chip-set.

    But on another note, the tomhardware review on the Phenom II x4 vs the i7 is pretty much incorrect. Taking into account the massive memory bandwidth advantage the core i7 had and the clock speed. I think they failed to successfully overclock their Phenom II. They also failed to note that while the i7 was running at 80c the Phenom II was running relatively cold at 64c.

  • jurassic1024

    Posted Jan 13, 2009 11:26 pm GMT

    Edit:

    " it was put in there underclocked to see how the NEWER AMD chip compares to it Clock for Clock,...."

  • jurassic1024

    Posted Jan 13, 2009 11:23 pm GMT

    @DarthHideous_1
    Everyone would agree about the i7 and its 8 threads not being fully utilized in games, but you comment on saying Quads (incl Nehalem) dont use 4 cores is really not true. More and more games are going this route. Just look at Far Cry 2 Recommended Requirements: Intel 2.4 Quad / X3 AMD. one game sure, but a MAJOR release game, which will be followed by a lot more. just depends on how much of a hardcore gamer you are. a 2.4GHz quad would get you at least a 50%+ advantage over even a 3GHz dual core if it was optimized. so going dual or quad i would say, would depend on how often you upgrade, and what games you play. dont forget the Unreal Engine is multicore. its now like their arent any uses for quads in gaming.... and dont forget 2/3 of the next gen consoles are also multicore, so its no stranger to developers.

    @jetman
    how is it biased again? you complain about TCO crap? if you actually read comments from console owners, what do they say sucks about gaming on PC?... that you have to upgrade every 3-6 months. my guess is Gamespot knows that too and thats why it was included. and what 2 y\o processor are you talking about? the AMD 9600? the underclocked QX chip? it was put in there underclocked to see how the NEWER AMD chip compares to it, and by the looks of it, didnt do too well. if you want Gamespot to clock it back to 3GHz and watch it stomp that Phenom II then ask them to do so. but i dont think you'd like the result. the Phenom II 940 only compares to the Q9300/Q8200, so its no beast by any means. AMD is gonna lose again this year on the performance front, but thats obvious. so far, AMD says they have no plans to go higher than 3GHz this year, so be happy with what you get, or go with an Intel Nehelam chip. and the comment about how "Most people who would even think to get the lastest from AMD or Intel usualy get almost all new hardware to fully take advantage of the NEW "highend" parts."... is not true at all my friend. Did you know ATi and nVIDIA only make the Enthusiast cards cuz we ask for them? both of them make about 80%+ of their money selling the low to midrange cards. the same goes for cpu's. same with motherboards. you think intel sells more QX (QX6800) chips or more Q's (Q6600) for example?

  • adamas78

    Posted Jan 13, 2009 10:57 pm GMT

    Good on AMD! about time they start stepping things up a notch!
    ..Sure it's not a i7, but if I was not running my Q6600 (which I am content with, and for some time more) and I was lloking at a new build, I would sure be researching more into these new CPUs from AMD.
    Way to go AMD! nothing like giving intel some heat, bring on the price wars!!

  • DarthHideous_1

    Posted Jan 13, 2009 9:04 pm GMT

    i kinda think you guys are missing the point. no game i dont care what it is needs 4 cores. most games dont even support 2 cores. So buying an i7 which has 8 (4 hyperlinked cores) cores is a complete waste. especially when the top i7 runs over 1k. ill stick with an amd chip that can get the job done when it needs to be done and put all the cash i saved into insane graphics cards.

  • jetman36

    Posted Jan 13, 2009 7:48 pm GMT

    Ok this is the kind of biased crap that really annoys the hell out of me! they take a 2yo processor and underclock it to the same freq of an intel thats using a highly improved core. can you say gimped!? on top of that, whats up with the whole "total cost of ownership" crap? Most people who would even think to get the lastest from AMD or Intel usualy get almost all new hardware to fully take advantage of the NEW "highend" parts. wow and AM2+ MoBo can be bought for \$50! congrats on ur POS PCB dude! even GOOD AMD based boards don't start till about \$130. same with intel boards. "It keeps up gaming-wise with Intel's Core lineup and holds its own in intense processing situations." Ya keeps up with old hardware. how about testing it with something that came out within the last 4 months from Intel, then tell me if it keeps up and can hold its own.(not likely)

    DAMN talk about biased.

  • verrin

    Posted Jan 13, 2009 4:32 pm GMT

    You're missing the point Anax1986. They're attempting to compare two products in the same price point, so the clock-for-clock performance is irrelevant when you consider that you're getting the Phenom II for much less. While I agree that just downclocking a QX6800 is definitely misleading when comparing it to a Q9400, you still can get a fairly good grasp of it's performance by comparing it to the older 9600. This review could have definitely used more depth, however.

  • Anax1986

    Posted Jan 13, 2009 3:23 pm GMT

    And for the record, I have always liked AMD. It's just right now they haven't been producing anything I like. This is a step in the right direction and the Phenom II is a good chip, but this review is just rediculously midleading to try to show benchies of an overclocked Phenom II against an obsolete AND UNDERCLOCKED Core 2 Quad from years ago.

    Gooeykat had some good links. Look at how high of an overclock you can get the 45nm Intel parts! And if you want to hgher end look at the i7 920- Tomshardware hig high 3Ghz range on STOCK VCORE.

  • Anax1986

    Posted Jan 13, 2009 3:20 pm GMT

    Whoever did this review really screwed things up. Either they don't know what they are doing, or they are just an AMD-droid.

    You can't compare a QX6800 @ 2.66Ghz to the Q9400. They are different CPUs. Different FSBs and different CORE (Kentfield vs Yorkfield). Clock for clock, the QX6800 is slower than a Q9400. So clocking an absolete core (from 2yrs ago) that isn't even produced anymore to AMD's latest flagship is rediculous.

    Clock for clock, the Phenom II is not faster than the newer Core 2 Quads. Period. And it's tough to tell but did you test a overclocked Phenom II @ 3.33Ghz vs a Core 2 Quad @ 2.66Ghz? What is the point of doing that? Compare them at stock speeds respectively. If you want to get overclocking involved, there is no comparison between AMD and Intel right now as the Intel parts overclock MUCH better.

  • Kleeyook

    Posted Jan 13, 2009 10:55 am GMT

    Why not compare with i7?

  • Wings_008

    Posted Jan 13, 2009 6:45 am GMT

    they under-clocked the cpu!

  • biokrysty

    Posted Jan 12, 2009 11:36 am GMT

    AMD rules

  • riptoe222

    Posted Jan 12, 2009 7:47 am GMT

    even that has been questionable on some review sites

  • riptoe222

    Posted Jan 12, 2009 7:47 am GMT

    SarjuS, only time a i7 wipes the floor with it, is if its 4x the price of phenom

  • riptoe222

    Posted Jan 12, 2009 7:46 am GMT

    you dont even know the name of the chip EssaregeeX, so hows your opinion supposed to matter, and it also contradicts all evidence, nothing has even shown that any i7 in the same price category as the phenom 940 can "greatly surpass" it, most reviews at best show them to be about the same, and that aint including the phenoms backward compatibility

  • EssaregeeX posted Jan 12, 2009 6:31 am GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    EssaregeeX

    Posted Jan 12, 2009 6:31 am GMT (hide)

    Or, just buy a q6600 for a fraction of the price, and OC it, make sure you have B0 stepping. Why pay about 350+ for the Phenom when you can even go for the i7 420? for pennies more you get a better CPU, that greatly surpasses this.

  • riptoe222

    Posted Jan 12, 2009 3:22 am GMT

    might not be the best cpu, u wanna pay 1,300 you will get a better one, but im willing to bet even the power of phenom II 920 is currently unnecessary lol

  • 43n1m4

    Posted Jan 12, 2009 2:41 am GMT

    Well, not exactly the most in-depth review I've seen. Looking at different other reviews, the new Phenom II seems to be a good gaming CPU, if you consider the cost vs. performance. Not exactly an impressive CPU release, but perhaps good enough for AMD to stay competitive.

  • riptoe222

    Posted Jan 11, 2009 5:37 pm GMT

    they actually are bout the same price, fair comparrison.. its a whole bang for the buck issue, intel has the fastest cpu round for like 1,300.. probably atleast 2x+ the speed youll ever need, pointless.. but ya, bang for buck, and phenom II and low end i7 are same price, fair comparrison

  • jsonting

    Posted Jan 11, 2009 5:34 pm GMT

    guys guys....i was laughing all the way when i read the posts, hahaha.... some Intel fans is arguing about AMD's comparison to an older cpu, and meanwhile AMD fans arguing about the price. And actually, from my point of view is, if you insist that this comparison is not fair enough, then comparing with the i7 isn't fair either. The price category is not even same! It's like comparing a 911 porsche with a Bugatti Veyron.No way an expensive i7 would lose! Because if it does, then you can throw it away. so guys, let's be really FAIR.

  • Kenji_Masamune

    Posted Jan 11, 2009 3:32 pm GMT

    sure the insane cpu's (talking about price) beat the AMD, but since AMDs are way cheaper and you honestly won't be able to tell the difference between the two unless you are given a numerical chart, there's only 1 reason to buy intel - to stroke your e-peen. Have fun with that. With the money you could have saved could have been going to better use - like maybe something that actually matters when it comes to games: the GPU.

  • stangen

    Posted Jan 11, 2009 3:02 pm GMT

    I spent less on my console then you did on your processor, and I have better games.....

    Just kidding, this is the year to upgrade my PC also, starcraft 2, diablo 3, warhammer 40k 2, etc....

  • riptoe222

    Posted Jan 11, 2009 1:18 pm GMT

    phenom 940 is actually shown to be faster or equal to intel i7 920 in many cases, especially at med to high resolutions, so much confliction and confusing information, many ways to look at it too.. all depends on what you need it for, and phenom beats the i7 920 in many ways according to several sights, and i7 920 beats phenom 940 in some ways too according to sites, id prefer to get the phenom though, just cuz itll be compatible with AM3 mobo, which is nice how amd's are cross compatible, better than buying all new motherboard every time, and i like medium to high resolution games, i trust the phenom to run higher res better

advertisement