CrossFireX and the Phenom II X4 940 – Competitive or Not?
by Gary Key on February 2, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Race Driver: GRID
The more serious racing fans on the staff tend to end up at iRacing.com or playing a modified version of Grand Prix Legends for our racing simulation fix. However, there comes a time to throw out physics and just have some fun. In that case, GRID is the game we play. We turn up all the options, set AA to 2x, and let the rubber burn in a Race Day event. Our results are captured via FRAPS.
At 1680x1050 in single card mode, we are GPU limited. All three platforms have close scores, but the Phenom II 940 does get a win here. The Phenom II leads the Q9550 by 4% in CrossFire average frame rates and 7% in minimum frame rates. The tables are reversed once we overclock the processors as the Q9550 has a 5% advantage in average frame rates and 6% in minimum frame rates, both close to the 7% clock speed advantage for the Q9550. The i7 runs like a Ferrari once we introduce CrossFire and overclocking into the benchmarks as it easily surpasses the other two platforms.
Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 21% and minimum frame rates by 25% for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has an improvement of 19% in average frame rates and 25% in minimum frame rates. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 42% and minimum rates increase 44%. Overclocking our processors resulted in an 18%~30% average improvement in average frame rates with the Q9550 benefiting the most.
Turning the resolution up to 1920x1200 has us playing the same old record. The results follow the pattern set at 1680x1050. The Phenom II scores another win here in single card and CrossFire mode over the Q9550. The Core i7 continues to dominate the benchmarks although the Phenom II continues to make a very good showing in minimum frame rates.
Adding a second card for CrossFire operation improves average frame rates by 9% and minimum frame rates by 14% for the Phenom II. The Intel Q9550 has an improvement of 5% in average frame rates and 5% in minimum frame rates. The Core i7 average frame rates improve by 30% and minimum rates increase 33%. Overclocking our processors resulted in an 18%~32% average improvement in frame rates for our collective group with the Q9550 benefiting the most.
Once again, our game play experience indicates there is no difference between the three platforms at our settings. Although frame rates were higher with the i7 in CrossFire mode, there was no appreciable difference in game play quality.
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...