In 2009, AMD's mid-range processor solutions segment was represented by 4-core chips, which included the X4 925. Despite the fact that this chip is more than 7 years old, it can cope with almost any existing task even now. It is the technical specifications and other important features that will be further considered.

Solution niche and its possibilities

The niche of the most productive solutions in 2009 at AMD was occupied by quad-core central processing units of the Phenom II series. Only they belonged to the models "945" and "955". Their technical specifications were almost identical to those of the Phenom II 925. The difference was only in the clock frequency. In flagships it was equal to 3.2 GHz, and in "925" - 2.8 GHz. But the Phenom II 925 was followed by the products of the Athlon II line, which lacked level 3 cache and, as a result, were significantly inferior in performance to any chip of the Fenom line. So it turns out that the Phenom II 925 in terms of performance was between mid-range and premium solutions. On the other hand, its excellent overclocking potential made it possible to conquer the frequency of 3.4-3.5 GHz even with a boxed cooler without any problems, and due to this it could be turned into the very same Phenom II 955. Now this chip belongs to solutions budget level... This is not surprising: its frequencies are very modest by today's standards, and even more advanced solutions can be easily found in terms of performance.

Contents of delivery

AMD Phenom II X4 925 shipped in two possible options complete set. One of them was called "Treil". It included the chip itself, a warranty card, a branded sticker of this line of processors for the front panel of the PC case, and a user manual. There was also a second configuration option called "Box". In addition to all the previously listed components, it also included a cooler and thermal paste. For ordinary users and novice computer enthusiasts of the second, more expensive, configuration option in this case was quite enough for PC assembly and minimal CPU overclocking. A relatively small overclocking of the processor could be done in this case. Well, the second option is more preferable for computer specialists with experience. In this case, you can additionally buy an improved CPU cooling system and thereby further increase the performance of this computer solution.

Socket for this silicon product

AMD Phenom II X4 925 was tied to motherboards based on the AM3 socket. The characteristics of the most recent products from this manufacturer indicate that this chip can also be installed in mainboards based on the AM3 + platform. Both of these platforms are compatible with each other. Only in the second case, it is preferable to use more productive solutions based on processors from the "FX" family.

Production technology

In 2009, the advanced silicon technology was based on the 45nm process. It was in accordance with this technical process that this CPU was manufactured. Due to this nuance, the crystal area was minimized, the thermal package was reduced and the final performance of the computer system as a whole increased. Now the most advanced solutions are already based on the process technology with 14 nm tolerance standards. As a result, the difference even with the latest generation of entry-level chips will be quite significant.

Cache

A high level of performance in 2009 AMD Phenom II X4 925 was provided by a system of fast power-dependent memory of 3 levels. Its first level was divided into 4 parts, 128 KB each. That is, his overall size was 512 KB. It should also be noted that 128 KB, in turn, were divided into 2 equal 64 KB parts. One of them contained CPU instructions, and the second contained data software... Its total L2 cache size was 2MB. It is identically divided into 4 parts of 512 KB each, which were also assigned to a certain computing resource. Well, the last, third in a row, the cache level was common for all CPU cores. Its size was already 6 MB.

RAM

This chip is designed to work in combination with only one possible type of random access memory - "DDR3". Moreover, if as part of a computer system motherboard based on "AM3 +", you can install any type of memory. But in the case of "AM3", the maximum you can use the modules "DDR3-1333". If in such system board install higher-speed RAM bars, then during operation various problem situations may arise.

Thermal features of the processor solution

95 W - this is exactly the thermal package in AMD Phenom II X4 925. The operating temperature in combination with the complete cooling system and in the absence of overclocking is in the range from 30 to 50 degrees, depending on the load. If you overclock it to 3.2 GHz in this configuration, the range will shift and will be in the range from 40 to 60 degrees. A further increase in performance will require replacing the cooling system with a more advanced one. The maximum allowable operating temperature for this CPU is 74 degrees.

Frequency

The standard AMD Phenom II X4 is 925 - 2800 MHz. Moreover, the multiplier of this CPU is locked (there is no Black Edishon prefix in its name) and it is impossible to overclock it by simply increasing the last parameter. There is also no support for various technologies that change the frequency of the chip depending on the degree of complexity of the problem being solved.

Architecture

The Phenom II X4 925 is based on an architecture codenamed "Deneb". It includes four independent physical cores. It does not have support for the current more advanced technologies, and at the logical level it still has 4 threads. But even this is quite enough to run any existing software at the moment.

Overclocking

As noted earlier, the CPU frequency multiplier is locked in AMD Phenom II X4 925. Overclocking in this case can only be done by the system bus frequency. And this is quite enough to achieve a 30-35% performance increase. But for this, the PC must be equipped with an advanced cooling system, an improved modification of the motherboard and powerful block nutrition.

The opinion of the owners of the chip. Its cost

In 2009, the Phenom II 925 became an unconditional hit of sales from AMD. It made it possible for a relatively small amount of money to get a very, very productive and functional computer system... The overclocking potential should be noted separately. this decision... Under certain conditions, its productivity level could be increased by 30-35 percent. But in this case, the requirements for such system unit increased significantly.

Outcomes

Many owners of PCs based on AMD Phenom II X4 925 continue to actively exploit such computing systems. At the same time, their performance is quite enough even now. Otherwise, this is an excellent solution that will serve its owner for more than one year.

The transition to the Socket AM3 processor socket, and, accordingly, DDR3 memory, as you know, was started with the younger models of the Phenom II family, and as our further studies showed, for processors with a reduced size of their own cache memory, the effect of increased memory subsystem performance is quite noticeable. , although it mainly refers to overclocking modes. But the evolution towards DDR3 (while maintaining compatibility with DDR2) also has an economic basis (for large assemblers it may already be more profitable to use a new type of memory, since the ratio of wholesale prices for memory different types significantly different from what we see in retail). There is, of course, an ideological background (more precisely, marketing, because not so few users still attach importance to the presence or absence of certain progressive differences in the list of parameters). Therefore, it is quite natural that the transfer of the 900 family to Socket AM3 was just a matter of time, and all new additions to the Phenom II family will be designed for this connector (or rather, they will be compatible with both AM3 and AM2 +).

Today we will test two processors from the 900th family, led by the new flagship: Phenom II X4 955. To differentiate from the previously released models with DDR2 support, the new processors have added a five to the index. And, for example, the 945th model differs from the former flagship (940) only in its compatibility with DDR3 (and a multiplier locked for increasing, since this bonus distinguishes the older models in the family, and now the 955th model is becoming such a processor among the quad-core processors).

Dynamic overclocking and fast memory profiles

As you know, with the release of Core i7, Intel decided not to limit the maximum frequency of processors to a fixed value specified in the specifications, but introduced the so-called Turbo Boost, that is, legalized overclocking, but not by the efforts of fans of this activity, but in automatic mode. It is quite natural that AMD, given the high overclocking potential of Phenom II, will take further measures to popularize overclocking as well. And the solution suggests itself: to implement dynamic overclocking at the software level using the AMD OverDrive utility, the functionality of which is steadily increasing. And in particular, fans of classic "manual" overclocking will be pleased with the opportunity to set the CPU NB multiplier, which was previously possible only from the BIOS.

Smart Profiles promises exactly the same functionality as Turbo Boost, with the only exception that a profile is created for each application that the user may be interested in improving the performance of. The profile indicates the frequency of each of the cores (or rather, the multiplier), and for programs that do not effectively use all 4 or 3 cores available in the processor, the application itself is tied to the overclocked cores, and the frequency of the remaining cores is proposed to be reduced to save money. Obviously, in this way you can achieve a more impressive increase than with hardware overclocking, since the features are taken into account specific application rather than formal loading of kernels. The disadvantages: the need to make these same profiles. Although for those who like to tune the system to maximum performance, it's the other way around - a great opportunity to combine productivity gains with energy savings (after all, for some applications that work in background, in the absence of the user, you can choose lowering coefficients, that is, finally, implement the Cool'n'Quiet functionality for the overclocked processor). I was very pleased with the ability to set the starting priority for applications: all levels are supported, from minimum to "real time".

Although Smart Profiles is more focused on processors with an unlocked multiplier (increasing and decreasing the frequency is set through a multiplier), no one bothers to use it for a processor with a limited multiplier. In this case, you need to overclock the processor in the usual way, setting the reference frequency corresponding to the maximum overclocking, and in the profiles, write down the corresponding reduction in the multipliers for the unused cores.

Of course, over time, the list of applications will grow, the profiles for which are already included in the program, while the list includes only the most popular games. By the way, there is probably no need to worry about the timely support of games: it is a trivial task to find out how many cores a particular game is actively using. And as a developer GPUs, AMD should have enough employees who have to closely monitor this kind of software to optimize drivers for ATI Radeon... Ultimately, the frequency of graphics processors is completely set from the driver, so a similar path for central processors looks like a very realistic option. From the tester's point of view, the only question remains: whether to use the profiles right now or wait for the presets to be received large quantity applications, not just games. We decided not to use it for now, because even without overclocking the Phenom II looks convincing in games.

Testbed configuration

(*) the maximum frequency supported by the memory controller in the processor, it is possible to install memory designed for a lower frequency (for example, DDR2-667 and DDR2-800 for processors supporting DDR2-1066), for processors with LGA775 socket, the frequency and type of memory is determined by the used chipset
(**) unlocked for user boost when overclocked
(***) when the Turbo Boost auto-overclocking function is enabled (which is implied by default), the real core frequency increases relative to the nominal up to 2.8-2.93 GHz, depending on the load, therefore it is incorrect to directly compare this value with the fixed frequencies of other processors.

A small remark should be made about the amount of memory. Considering that the same set of memory cannot be used for the three-channel memory controller in the Core i7 and for the two-channel ones in all other cases, we plan to test with the most natural memory size in each case (4 and 6 GB, respectively). However, when it is necessary to directly compare systems with different amounts of memory, the question arises: will the advantage of a system with 6 GB appear in some tests not due to the higher performance of the processor, but to the fact that the application used more than 4 GB at some point? and a system with a smaller volume was forced to swap data from disk? And since, as shown by internal tests, such an application (Pro / Engineer) turned out to be in our methodology, we decided to test the older Phenom II with a memory capacity of 6 GB, composed of two 2 GB modules and two 1 GB modules, for a more correct comparison.

Why not test all dual channel configurations with this memory configuration? The fact is that installing two modules per channel usually necessitates at least lowering the timings, and often the memory frequency. For example, a system on ASUS board The P5Q Deluxe failed to force all the tests to run at the DDR2-1066 memory frequency, and the ASUS M3A79-T Deluxe had to significantly soften the timings, although we offered these boards overclocking DDR2 modules from several manufacturers. And the MSI 790FX-GD70, although it worked stably with the aforementioned set of four modules (Corsair XMS3-1600) at DDR3-1333 frequency, and even slightly shrunk to 8-8-8-24 timing formula, but when two modules were installed, it could also work stably with even stricter timings (7-7-7-20) with the command interface delay reduced to 1T. In a word, it is not reasonable to adapt to the i7, which with such a memory configuration will remain on the desktop platform in the singular (since the layout of three channels is impractical).

• hard drive: Seagate 7200.11 (SATA-2);
• coolers: Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme (for i7), Zalman CNPS9700;
• video card: Palit GeForce GTX 275;
• power supply: SeaSonic M12D 750 W.

The new performance testing methodology (versions of the software used and testing conditions) will be described in detail in a separate article in the near future. Therefore, in this case, we bring to your attention a kind of "beta preview", with the inclusion of tests from the new methodology, and attention will be paid primarily to the tested processors with brief comments on the testing process, where necessary. Also in the final version, there will probably be a few more tests, and some other interesting innovations, about all this - in the very near future. For ease of perception, the results on the diagrams are presented as a percentage (this time the result is taken as 100% Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 in each test). Detailed results in absolute values available as a table in Microsoft format Excel.

3D modeling packages

Probably the most remarkable thing in this diagram is the actual advantage of switching to DDR3 for the Phenom II X4 955. Obviously, as the processor performance increases, the efficiency of using fast memory should increase, and, as you can see, sometimes this happens quite dramatically, because the 955 has only 400 MHz higher frequency, compared to 925, for which the effect of changing the memory is much more modest. By the way, this indirectly indicates that the Phenom II scales very well in frequency, and from a practical point of view, this means that future models (and, of course, overclocked current ones) will receive a stable bonus from switching to DDR3.

As for the comparison with competitors, both Phenom II processors look more than confident against the background of the Core 2 Quad family, but the older Phenom II still lags behind the i7 920, although it is not so critical to draw any practical conclusions.

CAD / CAM packages

By testing software previous version methods, we are used to the fact that the "design" subgroup demonstrates a similar alignment as in professional 3D. However, with the update of the versions of the software included in the test suite, the picture has changed somewhat. We must also make a remark about the results of the Phenom II X4 955 with DDR3, as we have already said, in the test based on Pro / Engineer more than 4 GB are actually used, so the comparison with DDR2 is not entirely clear. When using a 4 GB kit and keeping the same timings, the final result in this subgroup turns out to be more modest (113%). It is significant that the transition to DDR3 helps the junior processor to improve the result quite noticeably.

Compilation

The new compilation test is heavily multi-threaded, and the Core i7 scores the best. By the way, it gets the maximum score among all other tests within the framework of our methodology, earned by the fact that it compiled, the proposed sources are 1.5 times faster than the Q9300. However, this is only partly an advantage of the i7, the Q9300 itself lacks stars from the sky in this case, respectively, and the rest of the processors look quite respectable against its background, starting with Phenom II X4 925. But the older Phenom II, although it managed to outperform the Q9550, but so significantly, the huge 12 MB cache of the latter played a role here.

Graphic editor

In the new technique, the means of working with raster graphics merged into one subgroup and two new full-fledged editors were added, diluting the hegemony Adobe photoshop... For Phenom II, these tests, as our regular readers will remember, are clearly not business card... However, against the background of Core 2 Quad, the picture is not bad, but for the i7, many of these tests, which can take advantage of not only multi-core, but even use Hyper-Threading, on the contrary, are a very suitable testing ground.

Scientific and mathematical packages

In scientific and mathematical tests, where the floating point unit is able to show its strength, the Phenom II does everything confidently and beautifully. Moreover, unlike other subgroups, where we can rather praise the 925 model, which in general is not difficult to compete with the Q9300, here it is the 955 that is definitely good, because it outperformed both rivals by a minimal amount. Although we would rather assume that the Q9550 will win, because most math tests simply adore a large cache size, while the Phenom II has a smaller total volume than both competitors.

It should be especially noted that a new version MATLAB benchmark has become much more stable and predictable in its preferences (that is, there remains a dependence on processor and memory performance, but not some random factors that distort the results of the built-in benchmark, which is no longer used).

Java

In the new methodology, a test has been added (test virtual machine Java). It is easy to assume that the process of executing programs written in languages ​​of such a "high" level, that is, maximally isolated from hardware, presents a lot of opportunities for the operation of technologies such as Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost. In short, everything that can benefit from the relatively random "jerking" of individual computing cores and their blocks. Therefore, the Core i7 again goes into a tangible gap, and both Phenom II can boast only of the fact that better processors from the Core 2 Quad family are able to work under the conditions of random access to memory mentioned above. So the younger Phenom II even almost reached the Q9550.

On the other hand, it is, of course, difficult for us to name applications and situations right off the bat where one could subjectively experience some limitations and wish for more performance in Java, even on much weaker processors. But there were requests to add something similar to the testing methodology. No sooner said than done.

Archivers

And here the Q9550 finally gets the opportunity to demonstrate that it received an exaggerated amount of cache memory not quite for show. There is one more curious observation, in this subgroup, in view of the small number of applications, the result is highly dependent on the calculation methodology, and if, for example, instead of formal averaging, we pay attention to the total archiving time (both archivers worked on the same set of files), then the Core i7 and Phenom II will catch up, while Q9550 actually spent a little less time on this task.

Audio encoding

The new subgroup, into which the audio coding tests are allocated, will apparently be another hallmark of the Core i7. But the Phenom II is clearly not in favor here, both models under review lagged behind even the representatives of the Core 2 Quad family, and for some reason the results with DDR3 memory turn out to be even worse than with DDR2.

Video encoding

In video coding, the leader is again very clearly demarcated, but otherwise the picture is more interesting from a research point of view. If you look at the detailed results, you can clearly see that the Phenom II and Core 2 Quad have an advantage over each other in relatively less common codecs (Canopus and XviD, respectively, and in its “own” codec, Phenom II also outperforms the i7), and in the rest tests, the difference from the category is subjectively imperceptible, which is visual and reflects the overall score.

Games

Since the games in the new methodology were updated and tested with high quality settings, the task turned out to be equally difficult for the processor and the video card (GeForce GTX 275). And the processor itself has a very versatile load, that is, unlike some audio codecs that use only integer blocks, floating point calculations are also in demand here. Accordingly, the spread in the results is generally small and, perhaps, it will not even be possible to name an unambiguous leader. On the one hand, the Core i7 seems to have scored the maximum score, on the other hand, it is "easy to fix" at least by enabling the Phenom II's Smart Profiles optimizations. In addition, games are not just a resource-intensive kind of software; here some platform nuances also come to the surface, in particular, the implementation of graphics ports in the chipset. And of those found in our method, for example, the result of the game Devil May Cry 4 is very indicative, which, apparently, rests against just such restrictions. It's also no secret that with some video cards, the Core i7 system fails in performance. All this, in turn, suggests that Intel was not just greedy, not wanting to give NVIDIA an opportunity to present its chipset for i7. Perhaps the X58 needs exactly this kind of administrative safeguards while being technically less sophisticated.

conclusions

Phenom II continues to advance on the Core 2 Quad, and in the line of the latter there are no more mainstream models in terms of prices and positioning that would look preferable, at least from the point of view of momentary performance considerations in current applications (even if we ignore the issues of platform prospects and cost) ... The Phenom II processors also generally benefit from the transition to DDR3, which may not be so noticeable for low-frequency models, but as the frequency rises, the effect increases (and this is a very significant trump card even now, from the point of view of overclockers). It should be recalled that even for top models from the Core 2 Quad family, and even if we compare the effect of migration with DDR2-800 (and not DDR2-1066 with the minimum available timings, as in this case), the effect is less noticeable, which in its time was clearly demonstrated by our tests. And given that the Core i5 preparing for release at first will replace the younger i7s, and will not transfer the Nehalem core to the mass segment, some radical change in the landscape is not expected until the end of the year.

However, this in no way means that it is appropriate for AMD to slow down the pace of development of the line of processors on the updated core taken this year. And it is commendable that much is being done even ahead of the previously announced release dates, despite the difficult economic situation. After all, although statistics confirm the popularity of inexpensive processors in the first place, it is very important for the manufacturer itself to have offers in the class of processors for the non-mass market, so as not to depend directly on pricing policy competitor. Thus, if AMD continues to actively expand its lineup and is able in response to present models that, due to the frequency increase (and the development of the Smart Profiles idea?), Will equal the i5 / i7, it will be much more interesting to observe than the response in the form of price reductions models when a competitor offers something new. In principle, the 13% difference (130/115, according to the final result in our tests) is not so much, and from the point of view of the gaming platform and a number of professional applications, the Phenom II is already not inferior. But there are also tests, first of all, media data encoding, where the lag, if it can be eliminated, is more likely by alternative measures (at least until the release of the next generation processors), because there are models with a higher frequency in the i7 line and are planned to be released. And these measures have been promised to us for a long time: the transfer of calculations to the graphics processor. Fortunately, there has already been a transition from abstract phrases to business, and ATI Stream is already codecs third party manufacturers... But before widespread adoption, obviously, there is still time to pass, at least necessary for the implementation of the OpenCL standard and the release of DirectX 11, and the appearance of support for these APIs in the drivers from both manufacturers of GPUs. And then, everything will depend on the efficiency of the implementation of the calculations. general purpose on video cards. In other words, if the game is worth the candle, the developers of x264, DiVX and others will add this support to their products, even without any sponsorship, which is implied in the case of “proprietary” standards like ATI Stream or NVIDIA Cuda.

The mid-range processor segment from AMD in 2009 was represented by quad-core chips. AMDPhenomIIX4 925 was one of them. Despite the fact that this chip is more than 7 years old, today it can cope with any existing task. In this review, we will look at the technical specifications this device and more important features.

AMD Phenom II X4 925: segment and features

In 2009, the niche of the most productive solutions from AMD was occupied by the PhenomII series CPUs. They belonged to models 945 and 955. These solutions had almost identical technical specifications. The difference was only in the clock frequency. For flagship models, it was 3.2 GHz, and for 925 - 2.8 GHz. PhenomII 925 was immediately followed by AthlonII products, which lacked L3 cache. As a result, it turned out that in terms of performance they were inferior to any chip from the Phenom line. Thus, the performance of the PhenomII 925 was between premium and mid-range solutions. On the other hand, the excellent overclocking potential of this chip made it possible to conquer the frequency of 3.4 - 3.5 GHz without any problems, even when using a standard cooler. Due to this, it could be turned into the very same PhenomII 955. Today this chip can be classified as a budget solution. This is not surprising, because it has rather modest frequencies by today's standards. And in terms of performance, today you can find much more advanced solutions.

AMD Phenom II X4 925 Package Contents

AMD Phenom II X4 925 comes in two configurations. One of the options is called "Treil". This package includes the chip itself, a proprietary sticker, a warranty card and a user manual. The second configuration option is called "Box". Apart from the previously listed components, it also included thermal grease and a cooler. For beginner computer enthusiasts and ordinary users in this case, the first option would be sufficient. It was quite suitable for assembling a personal computer and minimal overclocking of the processor. The second option is more suitable for experienced computer professionals. In this case, it would not hurt to purchase an improved cooling system. central processing unit... Due to this, it would be possible to increase the performance of this computer solution.

AMD Phenom II X4 925: socket

AMD Phenom II X4 925 is tethered to socket AM3 motherboards. The characteristics of more recent products from this manufacturer indicate that the chips can also be installed in more modern boards based on the AM3 + platform. Both of these platforms are compatible with each other, but only in the second case, it would be more preferable to use more productive solutions based on processors of the FX family.

AMD Phenom II X4 925: production technology

In 2009, the advanced silicon technology was 45nm technology. In accordance with this technological process, the AMD Phenom II X4 925 central processing unit was manufactured. Due to this feature, the manufacturer was able to minimize the die area, reduce the thermal package and increase the final performance of the entire computer system. Today, advanced processor solutions are based on the 14 nm process technology. As a result, there will be a significant difference even with the latest entry-level chips.

AMD Phenom II X4 925: cache

In 2009 to ensure high level Performance The AMD Phenom II X4 925 used a volatile memory system consisting of three levels. The first level of the cache was divided into four parts of 128 KB each. Thus, its total size was 512 KB. It is also worth noting that these 128 KB were, in turn, divided into two equal 64 KB parts. One of them stored the instructions of the central processing unit, and the second - the software data. The L2 cache had a total size of 2 MB. Similar to the first level cache, it was divided into four 512 KB parts, which were also assigned to a certain computing resource. The last third level of the cache was common to all cores of the central processing unit. Its size was already 6 MB.

AMD Phenom II X4 925: RAM

The AMDhenomIIX4 925 chip was designed to work in combination with only one possible type random access memory- DDR3. If, at the same time, the computer system included a motherboard based on AM3 +, then any type of memory could be installed. In the case of AM3, only DDR3-1333 modules could be used to the maximum. If you install higher-speed ramps in such a motherboard, then during the operation of the device, various problem situations could arise.

AMD Phenom II X4 925 Thermal Features

AMD Phenom II X4 925m has 95W TDP. When using a complete cooling system and no overclocking, the operating temperature of the device is in the range from 30 to 50 degrees, depending on the degree of load. If you overclock the processor to 3.2 GHz in this configuration, then the operating temperature range will shift and will lie in the range from 40 to 60 degrees. To further increase performance, it will be necessary to replace the cooling system with a more advanced one. The maximum allowable operating temperature for this processor solution is 74 degrees.

AMD Phenom II X4 925: frequency

The AMD Phenom II X4 925 has a nominal clock speed of 2800 MHz. The multiplier for this processor is locked. You won't be able to overclock the processor by simply increasing the multiplier. Also, this solution lacks support for various technologies that allow you to change the chip frequency depending on the degree of complexity of the problem being solved.

AMD Phenom II X4 925: architecture

The AMD Phenom II X4 925 processor is based on the architecture codenamed "Deneb". It has four independent physical cores. Support for more advanced technologies is not provided in this processor solution, so 4 threads remain at the logical level. However, this is quite enough to run any existing software.

AMD Phenom II X4 925: overclocking

As noted earlier, the frequency multiplier in AMD processor Phenom II X4 925 is locked. Overclocking in this case can be performed only at the system bus frequency. This will be quite enough to get a performance gain of 30-35 percent. For this Personal Computer should be equipped with a more advanced cooling system, a more powerful power supply and an improved motherboard modification.

AMD Phenom II X4 925: owner reviews

In 2009, AMD Phenom II X4 925 became an absolute hit. This processor allowed for a relatively small amount to get a fairly productive and functional computer system. It should be noted separately the high overclocking potential of this solution. The level of performance under certain conditions can be increased by 30-35 percent. However, in this case, the requirements for such a system unit increased significantly.