AMD's Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 13, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
Without a doubt the Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition is faster than anything you can get that fits into an LGA-775 socket at a remotely similar price point. AMD has done its duty well there, the 965 is clearly a better option than the Q9550 or Q9650 for that matter.
As a gaming CPU, it's actually competitive with the i7s. If you exclude the FarCry 2 results, which I hardly believe are representative of most games, the Phenom II X4 965 is easily just as good of a gaming CPU as an i7 in today's titles. Now once you start throwing in background tasks and look at future titles being more threaded then the picture becomes a little more muddy.
Overall application performance is very good from the 965's perspective. It's only in a handful of 3D or well threaded apps where we see the i7 really pull away. The 965 BE is competitive, just not faster.
All in all, I like the Phenom II X4 965 BE. It is a good performer and if you can get the price right then it makes sense. The problem is that AMD is defending a hotly contested segment with this processor at $245.
When it comes down to it, between the 965 BE and an i7 920, I still opt for the 920. The 965BE does have a lower total cost of ownership so the real question is how well does it stack up against the Lynnfield chips. Based on our preliminary results, I'd expect the race to be reasonably close between the 965 BE and the Core i5 750 but the i7 850 may prove to be the sweet spot at only $40 more.
The clear response would then for AMD to drop prices - I believe at $199 the 965 BE would easily remain competitive. The situation we find ourselves in today is that AMD has a good enough architecture to remain competitive, albeit at more affordable price points. Thankfully for AMD's sake, regardless of what Intel does, there's always a price point where Phenom II seems to make sense.
The question is will this be enough to last AMD throughout 2010 before we see a real change in architecture?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
54 Comments
View All Comments
Roland00 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
The 200 dollar price isn't a mail in rebate, Micro Center a small computer store chain with about 30 stores market itself as a computer builder destination. They lose about 80 dollars on the processor to get you into the store and hoping to sell you enough other stuff (or assembly or warranties) to make up for their loss leader.steelicon - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
ROTFLMAOBBQ! Agreed! They get you in more ways than one, either it's the Processor itself, the Chipset, the DDR3 or all of them combined. Good thing we have another choice of platform!steelicon - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
Will this run on an old AsuS Crosshair NV590A-SLI motherboard? I surely do hope so...grimpr - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
A really fast CPU, some minor tweaks to the K10 architecture and AMD stays "current", but the TDP's are ridiculous, 140W!!, for non existing gods sake! at 95W TDP and at the same price they would be excellent purchases to Intels Lynnfields. Clearly they are positioned at gamers,a crowd long lost to AMD. For uses other than happy jerking at intel compiler optimized benchmarks and moronic SuperPi's with analyzing miniscule FPS differences at games, the AMD Phenom II 905E at 65W TDP is an excellent buy. Something about the 45nm SOI manufacturing of this chips from AMD makes us wonder...FireSnake - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
You really need to grow up with this 140W and take a very close look at the power consumption table ;)JimmiG - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
It's not like the 140W TDP happened by accident or took AMD by surprise. 120 - 140W has been the target TDP for high-end CPUs for a long time. At this targeted TDP, AMD found a 3.4 GHz chip could be produced with decent yields. Some thought, research and design goes into the launch of a new CPU even if it's just a 200 MHz clockspeed bump.Don't worry, we'll not see a 160W or 180W CPU any time soon since 140W is a sensible target. Modern heatpipe coolers, mobos and PSUs have no trouble with them.
If you think the difference between a 65W and a 140W CPU is too much, you must live in a very dark house or apartment since each light bulb consumes almost that entire difference.
PrinceGaz - Friday, August 14, 2009 - link
My lightbulbs consume between 12 and 20W of power each as I long since left behind inefficient incandescent bulbs.hyc - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
You guys are reading way too much into that 140W TDP spec. Look at the loaded power consumption results, the 965 is 223W vs 220W for the 955. So it's using a whopping 3W more than the 955, BFD.Griswold - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
Some people seem to miss the T for Thermal in that figure indeed.hyc - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
Ah, so which part of the Laws of Thermodynamics did you skip in school?You can't emit more power out (thermal or otherwise) than you took in.