CrossFireX and the Phenom II X4 940 – Competitive or Not?
by Gary Key on February 2, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Call of Duty: World at War
While not our favorite Call of Duty game, World at War certainly improves upon the graphics quality of previous versions. We play through the first few minutes of the Semper FI level by following a repeatable course and capture our performance results with FRAPS. We set the various graphics and texture options to their highest settings with AA at 2x and AF at 8x.
This game is not particularly hard on either the GPU or CPU, but we do hit a hard cap at 94fps. At 1680x1050 the Phenom II platform is able match either Intel platform in single card and CrossFire mode, although minimum frame rates favor Intel slightly. When overclocked, the Phenom II is only about 2% slower in average frame rates but minimum frame rates are 20% lower.
Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 12% and minimum frame rates decrease 2% for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has an 11% increase in average frame rates and 4% in minimum frame rates. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 13% and minimum rates decrease by 12%. Overclocking our processors resulted in a 2%~5% improvement in average frame rates with the Q9550 benefiting the greatest.
We have roughly the same performance results at 1920x1200 when comparing the platforms. The Phenom II is competitive with the Intel platforms in single card and CrossFire operation, though minimum frame rates in CrossFire mode trail the Intel solutions around 5% on average. Once we overclock the CPUs, the minimum frame rate is about 16% lower on the Phenom II compared to the Intel products.
Installing a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 27% and minimum frame rates increase 16% for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has a 28% increase in average frame rates and 24% in minimum frame rates. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 29% and minimum rates increase by 30%. Overclocking our processors resulted in a 4%~5% improvement in average frame rates with the Q9550 benefiting the most.
We did not notice any difference in game play quality at either resolution between the platforms after playing through several of the levels. Each platform offered a very smooth and fluid gaming experience. We thought the higher minimum frame rates on the Intel systems would be noticeable during the action scenes in the jungle, but we honestly could not tell the systems apart during testing.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
View All Comments
Myrandex - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
I agree that you would probably not see a difference at all, but you can get 6GB of Ram in a PhenomII system and still keep your Dual Channel Goodness:2 x 2GB & 2 x 1GB = 6GB in all 4 slots, operating at dual channel mode.
Jason
Goty - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
This is true, but then you run into the problems AMD's IMCs have when you populate all four DIMM slots.monovillage - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Good review and thanks for doing the work, i look forward to seeing the power numbers. With 2 very similarly priced platforms and the premium (but not out of reach i7 920) I was glad to see the P2 940 give a good account of itself.duploxxx - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
not sure how you guys whant to run a review, but perhaps start a comparing review with competing price configurations.q9400 = p2 940 in price, so it's useless to throw in a q9550, it's 20% more expensive. http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Sub...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi...43%20401...
then trying to memic a same price range by choosing a very expensive motherboard while a same spec mobo kosts about 50$ less.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
so there is already a 10% price difference.
not to mention that a q9400 also has the same hard time getting above that 4GHZ border and is already shown in many reviews including yours that this was the marketing target against p2 940 then why the hell testing a q9550.
I call this review total crap and waste of time for readers and reviewers.
Just remove the first page on your review, with this kind of review you just prooven that you are not open for the best whoever it provides.
CPUGuy - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Unless I misunderstand their intent, it appears to me that they clearly showed the PII 940 is better then a Q9550.Erif - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
I think the purpose of this test is to see if AMD's latest processors are fast enough for higher-end crossfire setups or not.As for comparing the performance of specific CPUs and their prices- Anandtech did that in their Phenom II review back in January 8 review.
Goty - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
If you're going to try and tear down someone else's article, you might want to check your spelling so you don't come off as a complete idiot.duploxxx - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
wow nice post, your added value is very high. Lets try some writing here and start with several languages, french, dutch, german, english, let's see how good you are at foreign languages.The fact remains that the platform is not balanced on price and marketing.
Spoelie - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
Total platform price was the same. The motherboard you linked1) was an open box, i.e. second-hand
2) had the 790GX chipset, while the motherboard in the review was the FX version. The feature set of this last one is more suited to running crossfire. Of course, you would have known that from actually reading the review instead of glancing at it.
In fact, it's a rather interesting comparison for the purpose: cpu with a little more grunt (Q9550) paired with a mainstream chipset (P45) compared to a cheaper cpu (940) paired with an enthusiast chipset (FX).
I presume the FX was able to provide a nice boost.
duploxxx - Monday, February 2, 2009 - link
FX does not boost at all, unless you require the pci-e 2.0 16x bandwith which is already shown in normal CF setups that it is not required.here is another one.... board cost 100$ and although it is with the sb600, there is nothing wrong with it, the P45 is also a midrange board.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...