Dell's First XPS System With AMD Phenom II Tested

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dell's First XPS System With AMD Phenom II Tested

Posted by timothy on Thursday March 5, 2009 @07:16AM from the shakeup-in-round-rock dept.

MojoKid writes "Dell's new XPS 625 is their latest AMD-based creation, and is the first out of the Dell labs using the relatively new Phenom II processor. Initial reviews of AMD's new chip have been favorable, as this new quad-core processor is slated to deliver roughly the same performance as Intel's quad-core Core 2 processors at more tolerable price points. While it's pretty clear that the Phenom II can't quite crack Core i7 levels of performance in most usage scenarios, the new Dell rig does show more than respectfully in a myriad of benchmarks. This was obviously a solid design win for AMD with their latest CPU."

75 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Newegg by jgtg32a · 2009-03-05 07:20 · Score: 1

Anyone want to add up all of the components and show us how much cheaper you could get it for?
1. Re:Newegg by wjh31 · 2009-03-05 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  nah, just compare it against a macpro of similar spec
2. Re:Newegg by Idiomatick · 2009-03-05 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Mac Pro: a 2.66Ghz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor, 3GB of memory, 640GB hard drive, 18x double-layer Superdrive, and a NVIDIA Geforce GT 120 with 512MB of memory priced at $2,499
  
  Dell XPS: AMD Phenom II X4 940 (3.0 GHz) Quad-Core Processor, 4 GB DDR2, 150GB, ATI Radeon 4850 Graphics, 512 MB ($1500)
  
  Unsurprisingly $1000 cheaper and only lagging behind in HDD which can be upgraded.
3. Re:Newegg by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 08:07 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  * AMD Phenom II X4 940 (3.0 GHz)
  Newegg: 219 + free shipping exact match
  * 4 GB DDR2-800 Memory (2 x 2 GB)
  Newegg: 39 + free shipping G.Skill 5-5-5-15
  * AMD 790FX Based Custom Motherboard
  Newegg: 100-200 depending on manufacturer
  * ATI Radeon 4850 Graphics, 512 MB
  Newegg: 120-180 depending on manufacturer
  * Western Digital Velociraptor 150GB
  Newegg: 160 (OEM) + free shipping exact match
  * 750W ATX Power Supply
  Newegg: 60 - 110 depending on manufacturer
  * Custom Dell Chassis with AlienFX Lighting
  Random guess (Didn't get enough details on what their case had and theres a huge choice) $100 + ~20 shipping
  * Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium x64
  Newegg: 100 + free shipping for systems builders
  ~1038 considering 30 shipping and taking the middle on averages, note my own phenom 2 build hit closer to 800 using deals and not trying to match closely with DELL.
4. Re:Newegg by Ahnteis · 2009-03-05 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Check that hard drive again:
  >Western Digital Velociraptor 150GB, 10,000 RPM
5. Re:Newegg by Anarke_Incarnate · 2009-03-05 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Rotational speed is only one component of the equation. As well, a lower capacity drive will be able to keep less data on the outer edge, where the fastest speed of the drive can be measured. Platter density and intelligent drive head mechanics can matter more.
6. Re:Newegg by Ahnteis · 2009-03-05 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  Feel free to look up the benchmarks of the velociraptor. The benchmarks are very easy to find. It's a very fast drive and costs considerably more then a mere 640GB drive (which can be had for about $65).
7. Re:Newegg by h4rr4r · 2009-03-05 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  I bet that drive does not cost $1000.
8. Re:Newegg by Ahnteis · 2009-03-05 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  Not even close.
  In fact, the difference is only around $30/30% which isn't THAT much more. However, I was pointing out that the Mac drive isn't necessarily an upgrade. Guess I should have been clearer. :)
9. Re:Newegg by Idiomatick · 2009-03-05 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  That makes perfect sense if you assume the drive is one platter. Since the higher density drives likely have more platters of roughly the same same it doesn't really matter. But by your platter density comment I'm sure you knew that anyways. Well optimized drives can run a good deal faster though just by a smarter data allocation.
10. Re:Newegg by Anarke_Incarnate · 2009-03-05 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  I am not questioning the speed of the drive, but rather that there is a lower likely-hood that all the benchmarks will be good. Much of the data will be written at the inner rings. Rotational speed is not the only measure of a drive's speed in single disk setups. When you go into multiple disk setups, then access time matters more, when discussing large arrays, and then rotational speed and RAID cache matter more.
11. Re:Newegg by Anarke_Incarnate · 2009-03-05 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  Data allocation is usually a function of the FS or other internals. However, proper queuing of the access can also optimize a drive. There are no free lunches. You can never have a drive/filesystem that excels at everything as you make trade offs based on the intended workload. Moving around database objects would likely have better performance from 8K or 16K block sizes, depending on the block read of the database. Moving around large data sets, with likely linear read, like tar files would be better served with >64K sizes, even into 128 or 256K block size, etc.
  The issue with the Vraptors is that while they are fast, most of that is geared for the data written to the smaller tracks on the outside of the platter(s). In a system with say 250GB per platter, the outer edge is more dense, and a proper fetch/queue will keep speed acceptable with a slower rotational speed.
12. Re:Newegg by aliquis · 2009-03-05 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  But it was $1000 CHEAPER and had the velociraptor, it's not the mac pro which has the fast disk obviously.
13. Re:Newegg by not-enough-info · 2009-03-05 12:58 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I recently ordered a complete Dragon system (case, mobo, 512MB 4870, PSU, x4 940 black 3.0GHz , 4GB RAM, 750GB HD, DVD-RDL optical) on newegg for $781.92 (bundle discounts applied) + tax and shipping.(not including OS of course)
  Total shipped came in under $900.
  
  --
  ---k--
  </stupid>
14. Re:Newegg by default+luser · 2009-03-06 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, you can knock $100 off the top by just trading the Velociraptor for a 7200 RPM drive. The Raptor has somewhat better benchmarks, but not enough to justify the price. You basically only buy it if (A) you're a developer and will be hitting the disk IO or (B) price is no object. And at that point, you might consider trading-up to an SSD.
  I will say, although I wouldn't buy an AMD chip today, it's good to have them back in the saddle competing again. Phenom was a disaster: late, defective and under-performing. They had my money with the Athlon 64, and they'll get my money again when they build the chip with the best performance/watt (the 45nm Core2 Quads litterally stomp the Phenom II in power consumption).
  
  --
  Man is the animal that laughs.
  And occasionally whores for Karma.
Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by CannonballHead · 2009-03-05 07:23 · Score: 1, Informative

Intel i7 (2.6GHZ I believe) ~ $288 on newegg.com, phenom II 3ghz ~ $219 (2.6GHZ version ~$170)
1. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by CannonballHead · 2009-03-05 07:26 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Also, for those interested in quick specs between the two processors:
  
  # Series: Phenom II X4 ($219) # Hyper Transports: 4000MHz
  # L1 Cache: 4 x 128KB
  # L2 Cache: 4 x 512KB
  # L3 Cache: 4MB
  # Manufacturing Tech: 45 nm
  # 64 bit Support: Yes
  # Voltage: 0.875-1.425V
  
  # Series: Core i7 ($288)
  # QPI: 4.8GT/s
  # L2 Cache: 4 x 256KB
  # L3 Cache: 8MB
  # Manufacturing Tech: 45 nm
  # 64 bit Support: Yes
  # Hyper-Threading Support: Yes
  # Virtualization Technology Support: Yes
2. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 07:26 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If you know anything about cars, this is about as good as saying my car gets more rpms for less...
3. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by wjh31 · 2009-03-05 07:29 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth
4. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by leathered · 2009-03-05 07:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't have figures to hand but you also have to factor in the cost of i7 motherboards which are typically double the cost of their AMD couterparts. DDR3 isn't cheap either.
  Whatever the case, it looks like AMD have taken back the price/performance crown they've always been known for.
  
  --
  For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
5. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by DanWS6 · 2009-03-05 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Asus P6T deluxe V2: $280
  6GB of 1300MHz DDR3: $120
  
  People say this is expensive.
  
  The first PC I built 10 years ago cost me ~$1500 for the case, 200 watt PSU, 500Mhz P3, asus motherboard, 512MB of ram and a 8MB video card. I could build a new I7 system for about $900 or $1200 after throwing in a NVidia 285 GTX.
6. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by moderatorrater · 2009-03-05 08:06 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  it looks like AMD have taken back the price/performance crown they've always been known for.
  For me and my friends, they were known for having the performance crown; the price crown was just thrown in for good measure. Retaking the performance crown would do wonders for their market share, but that doesn't look likely anywhere in the near future.
7. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by CannonballHead · 2009-03-05 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  But goes up hills slower. ;)
  It looks like AMD is a better value overall, but Intel is still outperforming it... even in the 3GHz AMD vs. 2.66GHz Intel. They didn't benchmark an OC i7 I don't think...
8. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 08:41 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  it is if you are going for a budget pc. Not everyone has a large budget and a hundred dollars less for a pc means a hundred dollars more towards something else.
  1000 vs 1200 might not mean alot when you can afford that much ...but...
  500 vs 700 means quite a bit especially when you compare percentage difference
  the i7 is obviously the choice if you want to most performance (which most people don't exactly need anyways)
  the phenom is a good choice if you want performance at a good price where people have strict budgets. the extra money can easily be saved or go into a better graphics card.
9. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by mr_mischief · 2009-03-05 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  I paid $1400 for a 286 20Mhz with 1MB of RAM, a 40MB hard drive, EGA video card, Sound Blaster 16, 2x CD-ROM, 5.25" and 3.5" floppy drives, EGA monitor, and 9-pin four-color dot matrix printer. Later I paid $135 for a 2400 bps modem (with 4800 receive and 9600 send fax capability). Now get off my lawn!
10. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by indi0144 · 2009-03-05 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Phenoms also support virtualization: AMD-V
11. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by XanC · 2009-03-05 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing that was around 1992? According to the Inflation Calculator, that's about $2000 in today's dollars.
12. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by Enderandrew · 2009-03-05 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  The Phenom II X4 940 supports HT 3.0 and a 5200MHz bus.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
13. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by Pulzar · 2009-03-05 10:21 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It's not so much that that is expensive, it's just that a Gigabyte AMD770 board is $100, 4GB of DDR2 is $50... so couple that with $70 savings on the CPU, and you're looking at $688 for Intel and $370 for AMD. As always, you have to pay a major premium for the top 15-20% of performance.
  Now, I do have to agree that that both of those options are cheap as far as the history goes. *Especially* the Phenom II option... $400 for that motherboard/cpu/ram option is really cheap, and an awesome upgrade if you need the power.
  
  --
  Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
14. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 10:57 · Score: 0
  
  > I paid $1400 for a 286 20Mhz with 1MB of RAM, ...
  Piker. The original 4.77MHz 8088, 64 kB IBM-PC was more than double that, or about three times for a useful config with taxes outside the U.S.
15. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by mr_mischief · 2009-03-05 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  That's a good guess. It was 1992. Now, what year was I learning BASIC programming on the Atari 600 XL? ;-)
16. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by XanC · 2009-03-05 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  heh, that one's before my time; I'd have to cheat and look it up. :-)
17. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 11:49 · Score: 0
  
  Phenom II 9xx editions have 6MB of L3 cache, not 4.
18. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by Daengbo · 2009-03-05 17:23 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  I paid $1000+ for a 1.77 MHz Z80 processor with 4KB (yes, KB) of RAM, a repurposed TV, and a cassette player. The upgrade to two 5" floppies and 48KB RAM was another $1000+, bringing the machine to $2500 in late-70s dollars.
  Now that I've won the geek pissing contest for most overpriced hardware ... what was the topic of conversation again?
  
  --
  Put identity in the browser.
19. Re:Pricing between i7 and phenom II 3ghz by Agripa · 2009-03-06 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  The Phenom IIs support ECC while the LGA 1366 Core i7s do not.
Plus and Minuses by physburn · 2009-03-05 07:28 · Score: 1

Plus its AMD, (have to love AMD, if it was only Intelm chips would cost thousands). Phenom II is an OK processor competitive, but not a outright winner. Its a pity that AMD gets starts catching up, just as the economy goes to crap, and no ones buying.
Minus its a Dell. Incredible boring machines, Dells. Has Dell, ever done anything innovative?
1. Re:Plus and Minuses by orclevegam · 2009-03-05 07:54 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Actually if they would just price it around ~$900 give or take $100 I might consider it. I put together a very similar system on newegg for ~$960 including shipping, but that also included a beefier GPU, and a 1TB Raid-0 array, but no Blu-Ray, and a case that isn't quite as nice but provided better active cooling.
  
  --
  Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
2. Re:Plus and Minuses by moderatorrater · 2009-03-05 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Gratuitous use of the word "dude" in their marketing? Packaging that resembled bovines?
3. Re:Plus and Minuses by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2009-03-05 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Dell doesn't really do innovative. Frankly, that isn't really a bad thing. Innovation is great; but there are also times and places where you just need a reasonably solid, cost effective implementation of the status quo. That is where Dell comes in. Somebody has to make cement and grow potatoes. Dell puts out cheap x86s.
4. Re:Plus and Minuses by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  Gratuitous use of the word "dude" in their marketing? Packaging that resembled bovines?
  The cow-colored boxes was Gateway, not Dell.
5. Re:Plus and Minuses by clarkn0va · 2009-03-05 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  The cow-colored boxes was Gateway, not Dell.
  That's a matter of opinion.
  
  --
  I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
Price diff is 4 more than just for the CPU, though by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 07:32 · Score: 2, Informative

Now add a motherboard and memory.
The cheapest LGA1366 motherboard I could find on NewEgg is $190.
The cheapest AM2+ motherboard I could find on NewEgg is $60
Also, the AM2+ can still use DDR2 ram, while the core i7 requires more expensive DDR3.
$1500USD? No way... by Zantetsuken · 2009-03-05 07:34 · Score: 0

Yet another overpriced and underspec'ed "gaming" machine from an OEM. As always, the proc is pretty good, but *only* 4GiB of RAM and *only* a Radeon 4850, for that price? No way...

For that much cash, and also considering OEM's like to have bigger numbers on their checklists to sell better, give me an MSI K9A2 Platinum, 8GiB of RAM, and the x2 variant of the graphics card, in quad-sli, leaving 2 PCI-Xpress slots open for more later (it is marketed as "enthusiast/gamer")

That's not to say 4GiB of RAM isn't already a metric ton, but for that price...
1. Re:$1500USD? No way... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 12:11 · Score: 0
  
  Yet another overpriced and underspec'ed "gaming" machine from an OEM. As always, the proc is pretty good, but *only* 4GiB of RAM and *only* a Radeon 4850, for that price? No way...
  For that much cash, and also considering OEM's like to have bigger numbers on their checklists to sell better, give me an MSI K9A2 Platinum, 8GiB of RAM,
  FWIW, I have that mobo (v1) and just upgraded my Phenom 9500 to the Phenom ii 940 and a Zero Therm short ninja $30 HSF. Windows Vista cpu score jumped a point and a half or so to 7.3 (yeah yeah mock the vista metric, it's simple and conveys the relative metric for those who don't care about their bogoMIPS rating :)
  Running it with the Radeon 3870, 8GB ram, 2x250GB raid, 1x30gb SSD, and 2x1TB hard drives it cruises along sipping a mere 140watts, peaking at about 210watts on bootup.
  Very, very nice system and a much cheaper upgrade than my intel quad will eventually be.
2. Re:$1500USD? No way... by GotenXiao · 2009-03-05 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  You mean quad Crossfire. SLI is NVIDIA's tech. Interestingly, I own an MSI K9A2 Platinum, with a pair of 3870s and 8GB of RAM. Not got around to upgrading my CPU from the 9600 Black Edition that's currently in the socket though. Also, with the advent of 4GB memory modules it's theoretically possible to have 16GB on the board (not sure if anyone's tried this yet).
  
  --
  Goten Xiao
Compare Same CPU's-AMD half the cost of Intel by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 07:46 · Score: 0, Informative

NewEgg REAL cost comparisons:
Intel Core i7 Unlocked Extreme Edition 3.2Ghz = $999.00
Intel Quad Core 940 i7 at 2.93Ghz = $559.00
AMD Phenom II 940 Deneb at 3Ghz = $219.00
The same comparable AMD chip is less than half the cost of the Intel chip. AMD is not as fast and they do not currently have anything close to the Extreme Edition i7 @ 3.2Ghz, but that chip cost nearly $1000 and not $200.
AMD get props for keep Intel competitively priced and my money for a great CPU's at a great price! I have a AMD Phenom II 9850 Unlocked 2.5Ghz for only $130.00 screaming at 3.2 Ghz solid, air cooled and can run 12-13K 3DMARK06 results with one 9600GT video card.
No affiliation to AMD, Intel or Newegg.
Nater - Geek and Custom PC Builder / Over-Clocker
neelsmith@gmail.com
1. Re:Compare Same CPU's-AMD half the cost of Intel by Ferzerp · 2009-03-05 08:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How did this get marked as informative? The processors compared are not, well, comparable. The guy just matched the clock speed with no regard for actual performance. The 3Ghz AMD performs worse than a 2.6Ghz i7
2. Re:Compare Same CPU's-AMD half the cost of Intel by CannonballHead · 2009-03-05 08:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The "do not currently have anything close" disclaimer is, I am guessing, why Intel can afford to charge $1000 for the chip. And you're comparing the 2.93GHz i7 price to the 3GHz Phenom II, whereas the benchmarks clearly show that the 2.66GHz i7 is still faster (sometimes just a little, I know) than the 3GHz Phenom II, and even mostly faster than the overclocked 3.4GHz Phenom II. So, your pricing is skewed in AMD's favor, because it is comparing specs, not performance. the i7 is getting better performance out of a 2.66GHz clocked CPU than AMD is getting out of a 3.0GHz clocked CPU... but you should be comparing price of comparable CPUs, not clock-speed-is-similar CPUs...
3. Re:Compare Same CPU's-AMD half the cost of Intel by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  Like I said they are not as fast as Intel stock chips and nothing close to the Extreme Edition i7, but a Phenom II 940 at 3Ghz can be pushed to 4Ghz with some tweaking and big fans, with water cooling no problem. So then yes I compare it to the Intel 2.6 and 2.93 considering the OC ability and the cost.
  Of course you can OC the Intel's and then they win out again, but at a higher price. I think for the "BEST VALUE" for performance AMD is the way to go!
  For the best performance with no regard to cost then sure go Intel with with it's more expensive DDR3 RAM and Motherboards - it gets very expensive fast!!!
  Nater
4. Re:Compare Same CPU's-AMD half the cost of Intel by Enderandrew · 2009-03-05 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Please cite a benchmark where the 940 (3Ghz Phenom II X4) performs worse than the 2.6 GHz i7. I'd really like to see it.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
5. Re:Compare Same CPU's-AMD half the cost of Intel by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 11:30 · Score: 0
  
  Please cite a benchmark where the 940 (3Ghz Phenom II X4) performs worse than the 2.6 GHz i7. I'd really like to see it.
  http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3512&p=1
  I don't think there's a single benchmark in this review where the Phenom II X4 940 (3.0GHz) beats the Core i7 920 (2.66GHz). Some are close, but the i7 920 is actually much faster overall.
  The Intel chips most comparable in performance to the Phenom II 940 are the Q9400 and Q9550, old Penryn quadcores at 2.66 and 2.83 GHz. That's my subjective eyeball evaluation of the benchmark data, anyways. One could try to do something SPEC-like and normalize the benchmarks to a baseline machine and then take the geometric mean for greater formality, but I'm not doing that for an anonymous slashdot post. :)
6. Re:Compare Same CPU's-AMD half the cost of Intel by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 11:43 · Score: 0
  
  FYI this was done on DDR2 motherboards, so once somebody benchmarks with the DDR3 mobos it should get better. Mind you the phenom 2's will be competing with the Core i5's and the i7's will be competing with the new Opterons/whatever the equiv AMD 'gaming' chip comes out as, with Quad DDR3 against Intel's Triple DDR3.
7. Re:Compare Same CPU's-AMD half the cost of Intel by aczisny · 2009-03-05 11:47 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  There are very few benchmarks where the Phenom II beats an i7. Anandtech's benchmarks show this. Google for pretty much any Phenom II review and you'll see that. They're decent chips, and very competitive given their cost. The absolute highest performing however...
  
  --
  Now, landing thrusters.. landing thrusters, hmm. Now if I were a landing thruster, which one of these would I be?
8. Re:Compare Same CPU's-AMD half the cost of Intel by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 11:55 · Score: 0
  
  Like I said they are not as fast as Intel stock chips and nothing close to the Extreme Edition i7, but a Phenom II 940 at 3Ghz can be pushed to 4Ghz with some tweaking and big fans, with water cooling no problem. So then yes I compare it to the Intel 2.6 and 2.93 considering the OC ability and the cost.
  Of course you can OC the Intel's and then they win out again, but at a higher price. I think for the "BEST VALUE" for performance AMD is the way to go!
  You're being completely partisan.
  If an Intel Core i7 at 2.66 GHz easily beats the 3.0 GHz 940 without costing much more (which is the case), overclocking doesn't change the picture unless the i7 can hardly be overclocked at all. Since it can, and in fact it can be overclocked by a higher ratio than the 940, the i7's advantage is actually only enhanced by overclocking.
  I see both sides claiming 4.0 on air. I don't actually believe either achieves real stability at 4.0, that's just the usual OC kiddie wishful thinking, but the ratio 4.0 / 2.66 is greater than the ratio 4.0 / 3.0, so Intel's picking up more performance. Even if you're generous and force only the Intel overclockers to stick to realistic speeds that should be stable, all the i7 needs to manage is 3.55 GHz to match the 4.0/3.0=1.33 ratio. Judging by the reports I've read, 3.6 or 3.7 is routine on an i7 920 provided a good air cooler is used.
  
  For the best performance with no regard to cost then sure go Intel with with it's more expensive DDR3 RAM and Motherboards - it gets very expensive fast!!!
  If you want a value Intel solution, Penryn motherboards and DDR2 RAM are cheap, and it's easy enough to match AMD pricing and performance (and overclocking). i7 is basically a full generation ahead of AMD; all they've managed to do with Phenom II is match Intel's older CPU generation at a time when it's been on the market over a year.
  Also, do you really believe DDR3 is going to stay expensive? DDR3 is going mainstream this year and prices should plummet as volume goes up, especially once Intel releases Core i5 (the mainstream version of Nehalem - i7 is basically the workstation / enthusiast version). (Why do you think AMD's also releasing Socket AM3 CPUs which can use DDR3? It's not really because of performance, from the benchmarks they're not getting much extra from DDR3, it's because the memory suppliers are beginning to switch production lines over to DDR3 as demand for DDR3 ramps up.)
retail vs build it yourself price.. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 07:47 · Score: 0

http://hothardware.com/Articles/Dell-XPS-625-Phenom-II-Gaming-System/?page=2
Retail ~ $1500
Exact same specs (note that I picked the best rating for each item if it had multiple options)
CPU - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103471
Memory - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231122
Motherboard - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131363
Video card - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102770
Power supply - http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010320058%20113142558&name=701%20-%20800W
Case - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811129021
Windows vista sp1 home premium 64bit - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116469
Newegg ~ $1051 Don't forget that this price doesn't include cdd and hdd. But this is basically everything, I picked the best rated products too (more expensive) so there is also potential savings with lower rated products. (I'm sure DELL goes with lower rated products anyways to cut costs and increase profit).
1. Re:retail vs build it yourself price.. by Zantetsuken · 2009-03-05 08:03 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Except I can tell you they won't use something like Asus for the motherboard, more like MSI or Gigabyte, which are also reputable, but cheaper in price, and though the Dell case probably is only worth the $100 or so, they still could put in a much nicer case for another 50 to 100 bucks, another 50 for a card with better cooling, the hard drive they used is $179...
  
  Basically, they could save 50 bucks on the motherboard, put it towards a better version of the graphics card, which after accounting for the hdd, would only put them at maybe $1200. So they're making a pretty easy $300 bucks per system there...
2. Re:retail vs build it yourself price.. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  Right, but then they have to pay the the people who build and test the machines, the people that run the website or take telephone orders, and management of course.
  I just built a new machine, and realized how much time it took. There is some value in receiving a box with a pre-installed functional machine, assuming it doesn't have any problems. It's probably a fair trade for low or mid machines. High end, they charge too much -- and it's never the best of the best anyways, better for DIY.
Core i7 VS AM3 by drewsup · 2009-03-05 07:53 · Score: 0

Cheapest Mobo for i7 at Newegg is $199. Cheapest AM3 is $99. These are just rough low end crap, but to get something really decent, AMD is 1/2 the cost of intel Mobos.
1. Re:Core i7 VS AM3 by Enderandrew · 2009-03-05 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  The AM2+ boards start at $60, and DDR2 800 and DDR2 1066 is also pretty cheap. You can get similar performance with an AMD rig for considerably less money.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Speedy Little Bugger by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 08:21 · Score: 1, Funny

"AMD's new Phenom II X4 940 chip is a speedy little bugger"
But what is a "speedy little bugger"? A Gerbil?
This phrase makes the author sound dumb.
Why not 1066 ram? by Sczi · 2009-03-05 09:13 · Score: 1

Does it really use ddr2-800 instead of ddr-1066? Seems like an odd oversight, unless I'm missing something. TFA says "The processor is connected to 4 GB of DDR2-800 memory, which gives theoretical memory bandwidth of 12.8 GB/s".. Anybody know for sure based on that 12.8g/s measurement? The 800 runs at 200x4 while 1066 runs at 266x4. The article doesn't even mention 1066 at all, ie, "it doesn't use 1066 because" or anything.. Actually, I just checked wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ddr3 and it seems 12.8 gig is associated with ddr3/1600 ram.. now I'm really confused.
1. Re:Why not 1066 ram? by Slashcrap · 2009-03-05 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  Does it really use ddr2-800 instead of ddr-1066?
  If you really think it makes the slightest bit of difference, you would probably benefit by fucking off back to HardOCP.
2. Re:Why not 1066 ram? by Sczi · 2009-03-06 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  1. Using the faster ram is a feature of the chip
  2. XPS is supposed to be high performance line
  3. You're obviously a threadshitter or a troll of some kind... how... unique
Phenom II X4 940 Defect? by Enderandrew · 2009-03-05 09:55 · Score: 1, Interesting

I've been fighting with mine for over a month. The motherboard will see 4 sticks of DDR2 1066, but I can't much past POST before the computer locks up. I can't even run memtest. I sent back the mobo and the proc. I've swapped out the memory as well. I try a different brand of mobo, and still I can't run 4 sticks of memory.
Finally someone mentions on the AMD forums that there is a known defect with the processor affecting some customers where you can't run more than 2 sticks of DDR2 1066. I find a statement on Asus's website recommending you only run 2 sticks. Foxconn tells me they know about the defect, and so does Biostar.
I call AMD and ask if they're working on it, and if eventually I can get a warranty replacement that works. The AMD rep immediately cuts me off and insists that a memory problem can't be related to their processor. I point out the memory controller is in the proc, and they keep insisting I bought the wrong mobo. So I told them I used both a Foxconn and Biostar mobo. They insist I must have cheap off-brand memory. I bought Kingston, but I also tested Gskill.
They keep insisting that Kingston isn't on the authorized vendor list, and that no one supports Kingston memory. I'm about to laugh. AMD kept insisting up and down they know for a fact that memory problems just can not be related to them in any way shape or form. They're not winning me over with the argument that their product is infallible.
The proc runs amazingly fast for the price, but with customer support like that, I'm damned temped to send the proc back and build a more expensive Intel rig and never buy AMD again.

--
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
1. Re:Phenom II X4 940 Defect? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 10:32 · Score: 0
  
  PSU?
2. Re:Phenom II X4 940 Defect? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 12:36 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Hey EnderAndrew...
  I've got 4x2GB = 8GB on my MSI K9A2 platinum v1 running in unganged mode (better multithreaded performance) without issue. It ran for the 9500 and the phenom ii 940 I just upgraded to.
  You probably need to be using SINGLE SIDED modules to run them all at max speed. If you have DDR modules with little dram chips on both sides of the chip, those won't work (at full speed) on most boards. That's your issue, see if you can borrow 4 of those to confirm it.
  As a VM user, I was miffed at the 9500's TLB issue - picked up 2 q6600s as a result, but the phenom ii is Absofrackinglutely amazing as a drop in upgrade to your AM2+ mobo.
  
  I've been fighting with mine for over a month. The motherboard will see 4 sticks of DDR2 1066, but I can't much past POST before the computer locks up. I can't even run memtest. I sent back the mobo and the proc. I've swapped out the memory as well. I try a different brand of mobo, and still I can't run 4 sticks of memory.
  Finally someone mentions on the AMD forums that there is a known defect with the processor affecting some customers where you can't run more than 2 sticks of DDR2 1066. I find a statement on Asus's website recommending you only run 2 sticks. Foxconn tells me they know about the defect, and so does Biostar.
  I call AMD and ask if they're working on it, and if eventually I can get a warranty replacement that works. The AMD rep immediately cuts me off and insists that a memory problem can't be related to their processor. I point out the memory controller is in the proc, and they keep insisting I bought the wrong mobo. So I told them I used both a Foxconn and Biostar mobo. They insist I must have cheap off-brand memory. I bought Kingston, but I also tested Gskill.
  They keep insisting that Kingston isn't on the authorized vendor list, and that no one supports Kingston memory. I'm about to laugh. AMD kept insisting up and down they know for a fact that memory problems just can not be related to them in any way shape or form. They're not winning me over with the argument that their product is infallible.
  The proc runs amazingly fast for the price, but with customer support like that, I'm damned temped to send the proc back and build a more expensive Intel rig and never buy AMD again.
3. Re:Phenom II X4 940 Defect? by Enderandrew · 2009-03-05 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't swapped it out yet, but I'm using a brand new 650W PSU, and I ordered a new 750W PSU to try. However, that became a lower priority when I was told directly on the AMD forums it is a known issue, and then Foxconn, Biostar and ASUS all said the same thing.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
4. Re:Phenom II X4 940 Defect? by Enderandrew · 2009-03-05 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'm at work, and not at home to check. However, it isn't a speed issue. I've tried underclocking them to DDR2800, adjusting the voltage, etc. And I'm using Kingston HyperX, and I've also tried swapping with my GSkill from my other desktop.
  There are people running 4 sticks of DDR2 1066 with no problem, but when I started to Google, I realized I wasn't the only one with this problem. Two different sets of memory, and two different mobos, and the same problem? Yet AMD is convinced it can't be them?
  Even better, when I called in, they cut me off at 5 seconds, wouldn't listen to my problem and insisted that the processor can in no way be responsible for any memory related issues, despite housing the memory controller.
  That sure sounds like they know about the issue, and are going out of their way to deny it.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
5. Re:Phenom II X4 940 Defect? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-05 17:48 · Score: 0
  
  Same AC here.
  Officially, AMD says that 1333 and 1066 x4 are not supported and have instructed mobo makers to downclock the memory. IT absolutely WILL work with 4 dimms of that speed, just not AT that speed (officially). I think your issue is the voltage your ram runs at though - it's effectively being overclocked and over volted just to run at the speed the maker said it was rated for. (Mobo bios updates may enable it anyway though, since OC'ers pay extra :)
  More info below.
  
  I'm at work, and not at home to check. However, it isn't a speed issue. I've tried underclocking them to DDR2800, adjusting the voltage, etc. And I'm using Kingston HyperX, and I've also tried swapping with my GSkill from my other desktop.
  There are people running 4 sticks of DDR2 1066 with no problem, but when I started to Google, I realized I wasn't the only one with this problem. Two different sets of memory, and two different mobos, and the same problem? Yet AMD is convinced it can't be them?
  Even better, when I called in, they cut me off at 5 seconds, wouldn't listen to my problem and insisted that the processor can in no way be responsible for any memory related issues, despite housing the memory controller.
  That sure sounds like they know about the issue, and are going out of their way to deny it.
  Nah, it's more that they don't provide retail support for motherboards/ram, which makes sense since you only bought the CPU from them via a reseller anyway.
  If you're having a post issues, I'm going to guess it's the mobo settings throwing you off. Take your mobo, go into bios and set it to default/safe mode. Make sure you're not overclocking anywhere and that you're memory timings aren't too tight, etc. Keep in mind a lot of memory isn't rated to run at the default voltage and they want you to turn up the juice - that's not AMD's fault either.
  The MSI K9A2 v1 (bios 1.2 and 1.6 (just updated trying to get the 940 officially recognized) was pretty tolerant of different ram for me. I think I have 2x2gb f2-6400cl5d-4gbpq G.skill ram (empty box next to the case) and a G.skill f2-8000CL5D set for a total of 8GB from 4 (double sided) sticks. running at default voltage (less than 1.9, don't have access to bios at the moment)
  I've got 2x2GB of 8500 (cl5-5-5-15) that runs at 2.0-2.1 still in the box, haven't tried that, but that's already pushing the official spec out of whack. It's the same ram as the pc6400 stuff, just set to run at a higher voltage (factory OC really). The really high quality ram doesn't have to resort to those sorts of tricks to run stable on a similarly high quality mobo. This is probably where you're getting jammed, over volted ram (which the maker sets to overvolt as the official voltage).
  Personally, I'm not a fan of kingston. Geil/G.skill and patriot worked best for me from newegg.
  Here's a google with more info:
  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=egn&ei=SLawSav_MtCCtwfo0YjDBw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22phenom+ii%22+memory+controller+voltage&spell=1
  "Overclockers and enthusiasts are still encouraged to manually set memory parameters for stable operation. After all, the most popular overclocking RAM already runs well outside specification. In the end, itâ(TM)s nothing new. Itâ(TM)s just AMD playing things safe.
  According to Muzny, future chip revisions could address the issue, but the problems arenâ(TM)t just caused by the Phenom IIâ(TM)s memory controller. Motherboard manufacturers will need to use quality components to ensure clean, clear signals if they want to do their part."
  I'll try to check this comment again over the weekend.
6. Re:Phenom II X4 940 Defect? by Enderandrew · 2009-03-06 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  It won't post with defaults. Foxconn suggested upping the voltage to 2.1 if I want to run 1066 sticks, and I've tried that as well.
  
  --
  http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
7. Re:Phenom II X4 940 Defect? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-08 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  It won't post with defaults. Foxconn suggested upping the voltage to 2.1 if I want to run 1066 sticks, and I've tried that as well.
  Slashdot ate my first, detailed and eloquent reply to this post, so I'll just give you the short version. Your ram sucks, it's being over clocked and over volted just to meet its "rated" speed. 2.1V is high for ram. Crucial and Corsair aren't good on a price performance basis alone vs. Geil/Gskill, but they make better quality stuff that runs 1066 at 1.8V instead of 2.1. Try that or another 1.8V set.
Re:Not really by InvisiBill · 2009-03-05 10:23 · Score: 1

Quite a few of the i7 920's (2.66GHz) are hitting 4GHz on air. A very large number (most?) are getting to 3.8GHz.
I put together an i7 system earlier this month (see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1121769&cid=26794093). EVGA X58 motherboard and 6GB of DDR3-1866 for $370 - $30MIR. i7 920 from Microcenter for $230. I'm not sure $570 is really "very expensive" compared to AMD alternatives. It's more, but it's not a huge amount when you compare apples to apples (i.e. not comparing budget-bin AM2+ motherboards to the feature-packed X58 boards). Also, the the Dell is only AM2+ - AM3 systems also are DDR3-only (removing the disparity in RAM from the price comparison).
I still stand by my view that if you already have a good AM2+ or LGA775 system, one of those new CPUs can provide a nice, inexpensive upgrade. If you're building a new system, then AM2 and 775 are old parts that are already on their way out. You can save a little bit if you have a strict budget, lower requirements, or no plans to upgrade. However, an i7 will be a better overall value due to the extra performance and the increased likelihood of future upgradability.
As all the benchmarks in the review show, the Phenom II was designed to compete with the C2Q, and it does that pretty well. The i7 does cost more, but also beats it (even when overclocked) by a pretty good amount overall.
I built this machine already by ganjadude · 2009-03-05 16:07 · Score: 1

but better NZXT tempest case same chip 8 gig of reaper memory 2 750 gig HDs cost to build 848$ When doing the specs close to those i got right around 600

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same