AMD's Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition
by Anand Lal Shimpi on April 23, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
It has taken AMD more than long enough, but the company is finally in a situation where its processors are competitive in the performance mainstream market segment. The Phenom II X4 955, 945/940 and the Phenom II X3 720 are all very competitive at their price points. Compared to the Core 2 Quad Q9550 the new X4 955 generally comes out ahead.
From a longevity standpoint, the AM3 platform is much wiser to invest in than LGA-775. Intel has already shown all of its cards there, and there aren't going to be any faster Core 2 Quads - just cheaper ones. By the end of this year Intel will begin transitioning to LGA-1156 and 775 will start fading away. By contrast, AMD's Socket-AM3 is going to be the flagship for the company for all of 2009 and it'll continue to live on into 2010. If you're choosing between Socket-AM3 and LGA-775, AMD has made that choice very easy - Phenom II is the way to go if you're concerned about a long term upgrade path, not to mention that the chips are generally cheaper than their Intel equivalents.
Where the situation gets tougher is when you look at the $245 Phenom II 955 vs. Intel's $284 Core i7-920. The i7 route costs you another ~$40 on the CPU and another $10 - $70 on the motherboard depending on what AM3 board you get for the 955. For around $100 extra you can go with an i7-920, which is anywhere from 0 - 40% faster than the Phenom II X4 955 depending on what application you're looking at. Now if you're budget constrained then the i7 isn't really an option, but as applications and workloads become more threaded the i7 could be a wiser long-term purchase.
The cheaper Phenom II parts, especially once you get down to the X3 720, don't really even touch the i7's price points so the comparison isn't really valid there. But the 955 is getting dangerously close to the cost of an entry level i7 platform, and if you don't already have an AM2+ motherboard the i7 may be worth considering. Especially now that DDR2 and DDR3 are much closer in price.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
65 Comments
View All Comments
strikeback03 - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
Well, the most expensive X58 board is over $400, while the cheapest AM2+ boards are under $50, do you want them to say the range is over $350? I'd guess the thinking behind that statement was that you would pair the most expensive processor AMD sells with a higher-end board - the AMD boards top out at about $190, about where the i7 boards start (ignoring rebates).just4U - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link
It's the minimum entry level into each that I think most people would be curious about. The higher end stuff can really skyrocket the price after all and I am pretty sure it would be filled with features not likely to interest the majority.strikeback03 - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link
Again though, those who are looking to buy the 955 are probably interested in some of the stuff the better boards offer. Considering the performance available form the 720 or 940 at cheaper prices, I am still doubtful how many people would go for the 955 and the cheapest motherboard possible.duploxxx - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
arrgghh stupied newegg search engine and no edit on anandtech poststhe msi costs 131, that is still 40$
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
ssj4Gogeta - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
AMD is getting close and that's a good thing as all of us know. Not that I use AMD, but low prices on Intel chips is good.But I think that AMD is soon going to be left behind again when Intel introduces the affordable i5. From what I know the only difference between i7 is that i5 has only 2 channels of RAM and it has the PCIe controller on the package. Surely it won't be too far behind i7 in terms of performance.
Also can someone clarify whether i5 will be using QPI?
duploxxx - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
well then you are one of the so many that have an issue about best price/performance and waht about know, all non i7 buyers are better of pricewise with a AMD based system unless you really want to stick with dualcore for no future at all... . On what planet were you living from 2003-2006 when AMD was the better choice of buying instead off Intel.Sagath - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
Yes, and No. It uses a QPI derivative called CPI if my memory serves correct.I dont remember where I read this, so I cannot referance you to it. Nor do I know the difference between the two. Sorry.
knutjb - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
AMD still has a long way to go but they are improving. I am glad to see them improve since it pressures Intel to lower prices that benefit the majority of us who can't afford Intel's high end. The closer the competition the better for the consumer, we can't afford to see AMD die off as some joke about.Griswold - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
"..but as applications and workloads become more threaded the i7 could be a wiser long-term purchase. "I bought my Q6600 in 2007 and for good reasons (then). I made good use of the four cores - but I've been hearing the above quoted sentence sind 2007 and before but it still has not become true and probably wont before quite some time.
Where is this "more threaded" and when will it actually arrive? :P
The situation is such, that I'm definitely going to wait for i5 for the next upgrade and may grab a dualie with hyperthreading, simply because theres only so much I need 4 physical cores for now so it starts to seem like 2 cores plus the two additional logic cores is the more cost efficient and rational way.
An i7 is definitely not going to be my thing - I just dont need 8 logical cores enough to make it worthwhile.
But maybe I can stick to my trusty Q6600 long enough for AMD to serve me the perfect solution, maybe with Bulldozer?
ssj4Gogeta - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
Why do you look at the number of cores and decide? Look at the performance numbers and decided.Besides Hyper threading can't deliver performance boost in all applications. So if you're going 2 cores with hyperthreading you may not see as much performance as 4 physical cores in many apps. You need to look at performance numbers for the apps you most use, not the number of cores.