AMD Phenom II 955 Benchmarks

Interesting. It's too bad that there isn't also something like a Q9550 in there to compare it to.

I'd love to see how far this can easily be overclocked. The benchmarks above, I am taking with a grain of salt, although, I can't see why these wouldn't be dead on, they look fairly logical with other benchmarks - for the most part.

I guess next Monday (20th), we will see 20+ benchmarks on just about every single tech site on the web.

weird... anyone else notice how the gaming benchmarks seem to go in weird directions? i7 gets a lot lower min fps and both are bottlenecked by the card... ?

the amount of watts better be the whole build.

btw here is the source
http://www.hardware-infos.com/tests.php?test=64

If it was a single card setup then every CPU in that test was bottlenecked a lot. Well at least we know the Core i7 is. Or did they do a test with Phenom II?

Anywho, the game performance is only for those who want to see their power bill be lower. Which is some. I really don't care. My bill is normally high due to heating costs in the winter and cooling in the summer.

Not a bad CPU but they do need to run a OCing test on it and see how far it goes compared to the X4 940 and the new Core i7 920 D0 stepping.

What I wanna know is how much it's going to cost. I'm looking forward to dropping one into my board and overclocking it.

Glad to see AMD back in the game. On paper the Phenom was supposed to be superior to Core but just wasn't in the real world. Looks like AMD is working out the bottlenecks. I'll be glad to see multiple benchmarks in situations where neither cpu is bottlenecked when it's launched. I think both companies are doing a great job of innovating so good luck to both sides, the consumer wins either way.

Face it kami3k the i7 costs more and the 955 overall will be an excellent choice for the hardcore gamer at the lower end of the high performance market that dont want to pay a premium just so they can encode video 5 to 10 seconds faster. Ive always had AMD and its done great things for me over the years. Ive gamed at 1920 x 1200 well before many others did and AMD has never let me down because Ive always had a good balanced system. The 955 will be my next CPU and will overclock it to past 4 ghz and show the overpriced i7 what the better performance/price ratio does. Im reading it will be priced around $300 maybe less. Plus the AM3 motherboards are dropping in price already to around $150 and less. With the right video card and memory which I already have for it, I will have one hell of a system to compare to your standard issue i7 one.

phenom 2 955 past 4 ghz
DFI 790FX crossfire motherboard
Gskill 4 GB DDR3 1333 ram
ATI 4870 1GB video
Gateway 24" Panel DVI
2 x 150 Gb Raptors in Raid 0
Thermaltake Toughpower 750 ps
Xigmatek Dark Knight CPU cooler
XFI extreme gamer sound
Razer 4000 dpi laser Phantom white mouse
Z5300 logitech 5.1 speakers,yamaha reciever w/5.1 surround rear

@ jimmysmitty: The Game Performance benchmarks are for those who care about game performance. As in most of us.

So, at the most commonly used res, 16x10, a 295 is bottlenecking a i7?. Im thinking an even faster cpu, or oceeing that i7 would give higher fps. If a cpu gives higher fps, especially the lowest ones, when oceed, its cpu limited then.

^^ Oops I meant CPU lol. @soldier37 is that a Apple keyboard?

CPUs are slowly losing this battle. It used to be, they could handle any card, any game at 12x10, but thats no longer the case. Now we have to move up in resolution for cpus, or gpus rather, to run out of steam, and see the gpu as the slow down.
As each generation of gpu comes out, this gap widens. Im hoping game devs and things like Havok for physics, and DX11 along with W7 brings more to the cpu side of things, as itll eventually need it, as we are seeing now

Some things thatre DX11 may not show as nice on Vista. Its too early to tell, but its possible. W7 handles things a bit differently, and it could effect DX11 , especially for MT, but we will see

Not really, W7 is not that much different then Vista, just more optimized. It's no where near the difference from XP to Vista, like HAL being removed from Vista onwards.

There's a reason why DX10 could never come to XP and all attempts have failed, it's simply impossible. Also I'm quite sure Microsoft has already said DX11 is coming to Vista as well in SP2.

One thing here, its so close in gaming, its almost as if it doesnt matter. I agree, get what costs least for the most performance. Theres deals to be had. Competition is good.
Anyone on that half node switch? Think theyd do it?

the intel Q8 series is Yonah not penryn.

and also if an i7 965 is a bottleneck for a 4870 X2 then it sure as hell is gonna be a bottleneck for a GTX 295

Just when is AMD/GF planning on going to 28nm? Last I heard, they needed gen1 HKMG to work on 32nm, and according to their roadmap of last November (or whenever analyst day was), they wouldn't get to 32nm until a year from now.

BTW, I saw the below post on MSNMoney, on BD:

AMD is losing it... I been AMD fanboy for 10 years but they lost me after seeing Core I7. AMD should at least put their dukes up, Intel is giving them a a$$kicking for last 3 years.

Good thing I went with Intel CI7 and not waiting for AM3 quads.

What the hell? Q8xxx and Q9xxx are Yorkfield.......Yonah and Penryn are damn mobile cores.......Penryn being the T series and Yonah is the old ass Core Duo mobile chips.....

looool yes

?? I thought you didn't care for IGPs anyway, or maybe that's just Intel IGPs .

As for the doom & gloom, we're pretty much the same except on opposite sides of the fence . Let's face the facts - AMD stumbled badly 3 years ago and are still paying the price. Yes recently they have made a comeback, but only part-way IMHO, and really the main reason I tend to view the AMD glass as half-empty is because of their unconscionable "40% better across a wide variety of applications" BS spouted by the CTO, when he either did or should have known better. Lying to the customers is as bad as anticompetitive practices.

In short, AMD talks the talk but Intel walks the walk..

However just as soon as the roles are reversed I'll be on your side of the fence. I don't owe Intel my loyalty, just my business as long as they continue to deliver on what they promise.

Take the best P1, use a 3xxx series gpu, and youll see 40%, whether its gpu or cpu oriented. Thats using a 4870 with this cpu, or a 955. Not every app, but alot, or spot on. No lies, no deceit, but spot on.
Just going on the gpu usage, thats conservative. Read it into context, and how it was displayed, as this is how the comparison was made. If people werent sharp enough to discern their presentation, ignorance is no excuse.
Im not putting you in that category, I just think you need to actually look at the differences P2 and the 4xxx series brings as a whole over the previous gen. This isnt Intel, they also have gpus.
Yes, I do care about IGPs, as a seeding effect for PC gaming. Its why Im disappointed with the rumored 8 series coming, and its old IGP usage. Im thinking theyll add the 4xxx series IGP later on at 40nm, which will completely dominate anything out there, and yes, itll be at least 40% better than the current one

I've always been a firm believer that Intel chips are better, faster, run cooler, etc. But I've always still bought AMD. Let's face it, in the real world, for some of us, price is more important than benchmarks.

The Core i7s are faster, and those of you who have to have the fastest will choose Intel. But that doesn't mean you have to slag off AMD: they're offering perfectly decent chips for those of us in the middle of the market who want some respectable performance without paying through the nose for it.

So I guess my only point is, can't we all just get along?

(and the irony is I'm going to get flamed for that comment, lol)