The Specs
The competing test systems were configured as follows:
Phenom II Motherboard: Asus M3A78-T (790GX, DDR2)
Core 2 Quad Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-X48-DQ6 (X48, DDR2)
Core i7 Motherboard: Intel DX58SO (X58, DDR3)
DDR2 Memory: 2GB OCZ PC2 6400 SOE Urban Elite 4-4-3-15 2T (reviewed here)
DDR3 Memory: 3GB Quimonda PC3 8500 7-7-7-20 1T
Video Card: GeForce 8800GT 512MB
Audio: Disabled
Hard Drive: Hitachi DeskStar 250GB 7200 RPM SATAII (reviewed here)
BIOS Settings: Strict clock timings enforced (no “Auto” settings, no auto overclocking), AHCI enabled, all integrated peripherals disabled.
SiSoft Sandra 2009
As always, we’ll start off with some theoretical benchmarks courtesy of SiSoft Sandra. SiSoft have just released version 2009 SP3, so that’s what we’ll be using. 2009 introduces a couple of new tests that benchmark a CPU’s performance in cryptography and hashing, and SP3 combines some tests to give aggregate scores, which should simplify our graphs a bit.
SiSoft Sandra 2009 will serve the purpose of giving us raw benchmark results based on pure calculation power. It is able to isolate different aspects of performance, with varying degrees of acceleration by instruction sets – from floating-point to integer calculations, to encryption/decryption, and pure memory bandwidth performance. From there, we can compare the results to more real-world applications.
In terms of raw GOPS, the Phenom II performs just as well as the Q9550. Unfortunately, the i7 920 leaves them both behind by quite a wide margin.
And in pure multimedia calculations, the Phenom II does even better (as AMD processors are known to do in this benchmark) but again lags behind the i7 920.
As we have seen previously – even with the original Phenoms – AMD processors tend to excel in SiSoft’s Cryptography benchmark. And it does the same here, even outpacing the Core i7 920.
So in terms of pure math benchmarks, we have seen that the Core i7 pretty much blows everything else out of the water. So we knew what to expect here, and the results are unsurprising. Let’s move on and see how they compare in actual programs people use in real life.
[...] just published our review of the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition. As you can guess by the name, this CPU clearly has Intel’s Core 2 Quad Q9550 in its sights [...]
“I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. In terms of gaming performance, the CPU is not nearly as significant as the video card being used.”
So as you’ve said before, but aren’t saying here… if you’re looking at gaming it’d be better to spend the $120 you save on the Phenom II system and get a better video card than to go with a Core i7.
Of course it is better. That’s what this whole page is all about. If you’re building a pure gaming system, look at the numbers and you’ll see that it doesn’t matter much which CPU you buy. Of course for everything else, that $120 will go a lot further.
[...] still faster than the Phenom II’s, and the Core i7 is the fastest of all. As we found in our Phenom II X4 955 review, if you’re spending $250-300 on a CPU, it’s totally worth upgrading to a Core i7 920. [...]
Verdict – Q9550 > X4 955BE ?!
Architecture wise, id prefer AMD. 4 processors on a single die. Needs improvements though. Cant wait for 32nm :-)
Is it possible to run a AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition in the asus rampage extreem motherbord?
I know the mobo has a socket 1366 and the cpu needs a AM2+ or an AM3 socket but I don’t know what that meens.