AMD Phenom II X4 940 & 920: A True Return to Competition
by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 8, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Adobe Photoshop CS4 using Retouch Artists Speed Test
The Photoshop test does basic photo editing; there are a couple of color space conversions, many layer creations, color curve adjustment, image and canvas size adjustment, unsharp mask, and finally a gaussian blur performed on the entire image. The whole process is timed and thanks to the use of Intel's X25-M SSD as our test bed hard drive, performance is far more predictable than back when we used to test on mechanical disks.
For the type of image manipulations the Retouch Artists speed test performs, Intel's Core 2 and Core i7 CPUs are the better performers. Cache appears to have a very strong impact here; Penryn based Core 2s are around 8 - 10% faster than their 65nm counterparts.
Phenom II is 7.5% faster than the original Phenom here. The Phenom II X4 940 is unable to outperform its closest cost competitor, Intel's Core 2 Quad Q9400. The Q9400 is 9.5% faster. The same is true about the Phenom II X4 920 vs. Intel's Core 2 Quad Q8200/Q8300. While we only tested the Q8200, it's still 8% faster than the Phenom II X4 920.
With the new Phenom unable to be competitive here, the old Phenom doesn't fare any better. The Phenom X4 9950 is over 10% slower than the Core 2 Quad Q6600, the first quad-core we all fell in love with.
The benefit of four cores is higher than expected in Photoshop; looking at a dual vs. quad-core Penryn, there's around a 30% performance boost from moving to four cores at the same clock speed. If you use Photoshop a lot, quad-core is the way to go.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
rudolphna - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - link
Hey anand, do you think you could grill AMD and see if you can get out of them which chips will be made at the upcoming Malta, NY fab facility? Will it be PII or maybe bulldozer?mkruer - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - link
Anand, I do alot of paring and although the recovery rate is good, i would like to see the results for creating a par2 file.Natfly - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - link
I'm glad AMD is somewhat competitive in the quad core realm but I just cannot get over how blindingly fast the Core i7s are. It is incredible.I hope AMD can make it through, for consumer's (and my stock's) sake. This is a step in the right direction.
xusaphiss - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - link
Come on, guys! I like a competitive market as much as the next guy but AMD is a whole generation behind. They should have had these when the 45nm C2s came out!AMD is lapped!
It's time for them to die!
CPU standards will only go down if they actually resort to third-party distribution!
Their video cards are always run hotter than NVIDIA and just less stable and overclockable. The only way they was able to stay alive in the race was pitting two of their GPUs against one on one board. NVIDIA hasn't even begun using DDR5 yet!
Intel and NVIDIA is not really receiving competition from AMD. AMD is just lowering standards.
ThePooBurner - Saturday, January 10, 2009 - link
PLAYSTATION THREE is that you?aeternitas - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - link
We would not of had C2D for years, if not for AMD. Please sit down your logic is flawed.Kroneborge - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - link
Oh, let's hope AMD doesn't die. Or you can add a couple hundred on to the price of all your favorite Intel processors lol.Genx87 - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - link
This one is simply not going to cut the butter by the middle of 09. True they are cutting into the Core 2 Duo's performance advantage. It still for the most part falls short. And I didnt see this thing really challange the i7 which will be Intels flagship chip by the end of 09. I dont know about AMD's future chips. But the Phenom needs an arch replacement for AMD to compete with Intel.JakeAMD - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - link
I would suggest an amazing PC experience is about far more than benchmarks or the performance of one component. Some benchmarks today are at risk of losing relevance to real application performance. For example, performance on 3DMark Vantage scores don’t necessarily translate into a better gaming performance. Also, the CPU-only approach to video processing performance is now thoroughly outmoded, as that should be offloaded to the GPU. The Dragon platform technology is really within the budgets people are affording themselves today and we’re doing a better job of serving the real needs of the PC market today. So I would ask you – Is $1000 or more worth the performance difference?Genx87 - Friday, January 9, 2009 - link
I am looking at these gaming benchmarks which is the most intensive thing I do on my computer. My 180 dollar E8400 is cheaper and faster.On the server side the i7 looks more attractive for my virtualization and sql server upgrade project. Where $1000 is pennies on the dollar. Though when you factor in total system cost it is usually not even that much.
Anyways the i7 will come down in price over the course of 09 as a consumer friendly platform is released and the cost of DDR3 falls as production ramps. So it wont cost 1000 more for an i7 system for long. And I question whether an i7 system costs that much more now.