AMD's Fall Refresh: New Phenom II and Athlon II CPUs Balance Price and Performance
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 21, 2010 2:52 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- AMD
- Phenom II X6
- Athlon II
Final Words
Remaining relevant is something AMD has done a good job of with its Athlon II and Phenom II lines. Without a major redesign, AMD has managed to squeeze a reasonable amount of performance out of the Phenom II architecture. Pricing is what makes this all work. By being more aggressive on the pricing front than Intel, AMD is able to actually pull off some unquestionable wins.
The Athlon II X4 645 consistently does better than its dual-core competition and if you give up a little bit of clock speed you can even get the CPU down to the $100 mark with the Athlon II X4 640. The same is true for the Athlon II X3 450. At $87 there's simply nothing in Intel's lineup that can come close in most tests.
The dual core offerings are less interesting as you don't save a ton of money and lose the core-count advantage that the X4 and X3 give you.
The Phenom II X6 1075T is an interesting chip as you get a lot of compute but it's only useful in heavily threaded apps. While AMD does have its own turbo mode on the 1075T, it's not enough to save the chip in lightly threaded applications.
The Phenom II X4 970 can be pretty close to the Core i5 760 however. Intel is faster in gaming and certain applications (e.g. Photoshop), while AMD was competitive in our encoding test and Cinebench.
Overall I'd say the new Athlon II X4 and X3 are really the stars of the show. If you're spending ~$100 on a new CPU, AMD makes it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
98 Comments
View All Comments
Tanclearas - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - link
Once again, I believe the biggest release AMD could make is the platform. I ended up going with a Q6600 a few years ago when I would have loved to choose AM2+. I have been happy with the Q6600, but I spent a lot more on it than I really wanted to at the time. I could have put together a system using a CPU that cost $200 less, then upgraded one or two years later with a significantly faster CPU.Fast forward to 2010 and the situation is quite similar. I would love to pick up an AM3+ based system with a Phenom II X4 and be ready for whatever AMD has coming. I would build that system right now, and AMD would be getting 2 CPU sales (unless things went horribly, HORRIBLY wrong with BD).
iuqidids_sm - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - link
Is there any news about the 95W x6 cpu's, particularly the 1055? Apparently its on sale outside US, but I can't seem to find it from US based retailers. Thanks.Lolimaster - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - link
Why don't you use 3DMax 2010 instead of an ancient version from 2005. Enough with the bias.Maybe because in this updated version Phenom II X6 perform better than any i7 quad?
bji - Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - link
I read alot of benchmark reviews. "This benchmark favors Intel" is a line I read quite frequently, and I always assume it's because compiler writers and/or software developers consciously choose to optimize for Intel chips (which makes sense since it's the larger part of the market). "This benchmark favors AMD" is not something I think I've ever read, at least not in a context that led me to believe that it's due to specific optimizations targeted at the processor. Why would 3DMax 2010 perform relatively better on Intel than 3DMax 2005 did? Is it because the newer version has been better optimized for Intel?In that case, is it more valid to use a newer version or an older version? I guess we want our benchmarks to reflect the non-benchmark software that will run on the platform, so I suppose that if most software is Intel-optimized, Intel-optimized benchmarks make sense. If not, then not.
I personally use Linux almost exclusively and I feel pretty confident that the GNU compiler toochain that is used for this operating system is not more optimized for one processor vendor than another - at least not intentionally, anyway.
In the for-money world of Microsoft and Intel with their backroom deals and shady business practices, however, I can't say for sure.
Lolimaster - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - link
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-cha...flyck - Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - link
I would expect Anand to have some form of moderation on this forum?Taft12 - Friday, September 24, 2010 - link
You would think they would with this new forum software, but alas....lwatcdr - Friday, September 24, 2010 - link
Slashcode does.Why do we have to waste time reading dumb stuff like this?
I agree.
but alas....
hacksquad - Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - link
I hope you stop using intel's new cpu's cause it contain AMD technology which is x86-64/AMD64 :PStaples - Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - link
I think it would be more helpful if you gave percentages when overclocking in addition to ran clock numbers. It managed 4.0GHz does not mean as much as it achieved a stable overclock of 25% vs the other processor which managed a tiny 10%. Makes comparing things a lot easier.