Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AMD's Phenom II 965, 3.4GHz, 140 Watts, $245

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the less-is-more dept.

Vigile writes "While AMD does not have the muscle to push around the i7, they certainly have the ability to give the older and more common Core 2 Quads a run for their money. With the release of the Phenom II X4 965, AMD further attempts to dethrone the Core 2 Quad as the premier midrange CPU offering. While it may not be a world-beater by any stretch of the imagination, it certainly is catching Intel's attention in the breadbasket of the CPU market. The X4 965 is the fastest clocked processor that AMD has ever produced, much less shipped in mass quantities. While the speed bump is appreciated, the cost in terms of power and heat will make the introduction of the X4 965 problematic for some. Many of us thought that we would never see another 140 watt processor (as the Phenom 9950 was), but unfortunately those days are back. Still, AMD offers a compelling part at a reasonable price, and their motherboard support for this new 140 watt processor is robust."

4 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. as the power station would say... by BobZee1 · · Score: 0, Troll

    some like it hot

    --
    dumber people are doing harder things everyday
  2. Re:FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I paid $260 (with discounts) for my Q9550 nearly a year ago. It's only $220 retail now, without any discounts.

    Also consider Intel has a 65W version of the Q9550.

    I can't see how this AMD is any good.

  3. Re:FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Tech Report tells a different story:

    http://techreport.com/articles.x/17402/11

    A story that says that you can't necessarily compare like-for-like when using different motherboards. At any rate, xbit seems to have grabbed a pretty power hungry MB for their testing. Looking back at the TR article, the Q9550 numbers are probably a little high, though, as Intel has told them to underclock a different processor for their Q9550 numbers.

    In either case, you'd normally want a MB/Processor combo that was lower at Idle than at full load anyway, as most people will not be pegging their CPU all the time.

  4. Re:FAIL by hattig · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hmm, I'd trust the Tech Report figures more, which support the post that you replied to.

    Of course individual chips differ, platforms tested upon differ, and in the end a few percent either way is neither here nor there.