PingoPongo Posted April 23, 2009 Posted April 23, 2009 Btw anybody knows any temps of this cpu? I mean how are the temps compared to the i7 temps, wich are pretty high... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted April 23, 2009 Posted April 23, 2009 I'd have to say Waco is a poor overclocker though. Pray tell...why? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewwildman Posted April 23, 2009 Posted April 23, 2009 What's "null" on the sisoft sandra tests? misplacement of the numbers on the chart. null means that there was nothing listed for what the value was describing (no proc name entered). wherever it says null, just assume that the value corresponds to the blank processor next to it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Smith Posted April 23, 2009 Posted April 23, 2009 It is "limited" when compared to other chips on the market aka i7. Limited on air, but unbeatable on extreme cooling Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fogel Posted April 23, 2009 Posted April 23, 2009 (edited) Sweet! - Was looking forward to this review. Kind of sad no dual core was thrown in for the gaming benchmarks for quick comparison. Â If it was a completely differently platform than the 940 and more expensive to boot like the Core i7 I would not see the advantage, but since its not that really makes the 955 a REALLY tempting choice. Â Looking like Phenom II X4 955 for mid-range builds and Core i7 920 for enthusiast builds. This is where I really would have loved to see it compared to a dual core in the gaming department as it is looking like there is no reason to go C2D anymore but without side by side recent benchmarks to judge against I'm not sure I want to use that blanket statement about C2Ds. Edited April 23, 2009 by Fogel Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Smith Posted April 24, 2009 Posted April 24, 2009 I would consider the PII X3s as mid-range CPUs... They are a nice alternative to the C2Ds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajmatson Posted April 24, 2009 Posted April 24, 2009 Agreed with The Smith. The X3's are more of the mid range while the new X4's are more of the "Affordable Enthusiast" class. AMD never ment for the new X4's to be all out best. They want to give the average enthusiast that does not have a lot of money to blow to have the best bang for his buck. I for one am pleased with the direction they are taking now everyone can have a piece of the speed market without having to go into debt for it. Chime in the face that they are backwards compatible with AM2+ hardware and you have the flexibility along with the affordability. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fogel Posted April 24, 2009 Posted April 24, 2009 I suppose... Â But doing some quick pricing with the 955, Gigabyte motherboard, 650W Corsair PSU, HSF, GTX260/216, 640GB 32MB Cache HDD, 4GB DDR2 with some rounding up and that takes me to $775. I do not necessarily see this anywhere near enthusiast range or "affordable enthusiast" as it is still below $1000 and more than that, below $800. It would be a pretty damn kick butt computer but price check point wise I'd still call it mid-range. I call this enthusiast power for mid-range pricing ...but isn't that why we build computers instead of going to Dell/Alienware??? It's all about Do It Yourself. Â Â Most review sites list a Mid-Range PC as $800 - $1500. Tom's Hardware had a marathon for $1250 Mid-Range PC build. So yeah, I pretty much proved myself wrong when I said I think the Core i7 is an enthusiast build by linking this article, but I still hold that belief for a couple reasons. I think the true power in the i7 is when the user goes SLI/CF. More important to the equation though is most PC Builders average an $800 build. Â And while this chip is more expensive than most buy... the other parts (namely motherboard and ram) that are used in conjunction are not expensive ...where as the Core i7 supporting parts are. Â I for one am pleased with the direction they are taking now everyone can have a piece of the speed market without having to go into debt for it. Chime in the face that they are backwards compatible with AM2+ hardware and you have the flexibility along with the affordability. Silly semantics aside, I think we are all in agreement here. ^_^ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAlex Posted April 25, 2009 Posted April 25, 2009 Stock volts isn't even the point I was starting with. I'm just saying when AMD can't overclock higher than Intel's previous lineup than it can be labeled as having limited overclocking headroom. Oh...yeah I see. Intel's latest generation, the 965 XE can OC to 5.6 GHz, while AMD's latest generation can OC to 6.6GHz, surely AMD can't beat Intel's older lineup? Â AMD has never been able to do that... *Cough* Above *Cough* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted April 25, 2009 Posted April 25, 2009 *Cough* Above *Cough* Extreme cooling doesn't count. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Smith Posted April 25, 2009 Posted April 25, 2009 Extreme cooling doesn't count. Why not? Everyone has access to extreme cooling. Proof: I made a nice pot for 40 box. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKillSteal Posted April 25, 2009 Posted April 25, 2009 Why not? Everyone has access to extreme cooling. Proof: I made a nice pot for 40 box. Everyone may have access to it but not everyone has the know-how to put the equipment to use. Plus it doesn't reflect what the average user can expect to get. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts