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
SYSMark 2007 Performance
Our journey starts with SYSMark 2007, the only all-encompassing performance suite in our review today. The idea here is simple: one benchmark to indicate the overall performance of your machine.
Let's go down the matchups shall we? The Phenom II X4 970 BE is competitive with the Core i5 750. Intel manages a 5.9% performance advantage in this comparison, but as I mentioned earlier the two chips will trade blows across much of our benchmark suite.
The Phenom II X6 1075T doesn't have a direct competitor but here it does worse than the cheaper Core i5 750. SYSMark is mostly a test of good dual-core performance and as a result Intel's turbo does more for performance here than AMD's 2-extra cores. It's a valid scenario to keep in mind as the number of applications that can stress all 6 cores are limited. Although when you're running one, there's generally no substitute for more cores.
As I mentioned in the introduction, the Phenom II X2 560 will easily lose to the Core i3 530 as the graph shows above. The same is true for the Athlon II X4 645. The chip gives you four cores at a very competitive price, but in a test that primarily stresses two cores the 645 doesn't get a chance to run.
The Athlon II X3 450 vs. Pentium G6950 matchup begins in Intel's favor, however this is the one and only time in our review that you'll see this happen.
Adobe Photoshop CS4 Performance
To measure performance under Photoshop CS4 we turn to the Retouch Artists’ Speed Test. The 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.
Time is reported in seconds and the lower numbers mean better performance. The test is multithreaded and can hit all four cores in a quad-core machine.
Our Photoshop benchmark has traditionally favored Intel's architectures, which is definitely visible when you look at the Phenom II X6 1075T and Phenom II X4 970 BE above. The Athlon II X4 645 does slightly better than the Core i3 530 (effectively on-par with the 540), while the Athlon II X3 450 does noticeably better than the Pentium G6950. You can also see why I'm not really interested in the dual-core parts. They perform well, but that third core does come in handy for very little added cost.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
98 Comments
View All Comments
hangfirew8 - Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - link
I love competition. I want choices, not just at the lower end price points.The real issue is that AMD has not improved their instructions per clock cycle ratio substantially since the earliest K8's. AMD caches have gotten larger, HT has gotten faster, power saving features have gotten more sophisticated, clock rates have gone up, but we've yet to see any real jump in core processing efficiency.
Until AMD addresses that they will stay on the low end, with the low end margins that come with that market.
bji - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - link
Fry's had a sale on these last week; you can see the advertisement for this sale at:http://newspaperads.mercurynews.com/FSI/Page.aspx?...
$179.99 for the Phenom II 1075T seemed like a good deal to me so I picked one up. I still don't even have any of the other system components I need to run this thing; but the deal was so good that I just had to jump. I'll buy motherboard, memory, etc later ...
The weird thing is the AMD seal on the top of the box lists it as a 1075T and says its clock rate is 2.8 Ghz. Didn't notice this until I got home. I wrote to AMD to ask about it and they replied that they had some printing problems with the labels and some boxes went to vendors with that printing error. But they assured me that it's really a 3.0 Ghz part.
Gilbert Osmond - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - link
I notice on the photos of the chip packages it says:DIFFUSED IN GERMANY
MADE IN MALAYSIA
I've not seen the "Diffused in..." marker ever before on a chip package. What does it refer to / mean?
Gilbert Osmond - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - link
I've found a complete (exhaustive) answer to my own question, here:http://www.faqs.org/rulings/rulings2007HQW968421.h...
The long and short is that the separate markings help to resolve an ambiguity about the country-of-origin.
LoneWolf15 - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - link
While I like Intel CPUs, it seems that good 1156/1366 mainboards are so expensive compared to Socket AM3.It'll be awhile before I replace my Q9650, but when it happens, if Intel hasn't worked with vendors to make mainboards more reasonably-priced, I see AMD as a real possibility.
Taft12 - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - link
It's not board OEMs that are causing motherboards to be unreasonably-priced, it is Intel with their chipset pricing. Despite moving the IGP off of the chipset (a huge cost elimination), the wholesale price stayed the same.3rd party chipset competition is needed desperately but Intel will have none of that! AMD boards definitely give you more for less.
mino - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - link
Actually this sad fact is affecting the AMD market too.It seems Nvidia has completely occupied the low-end market while AMD IGP boards have moved up on the price scale around $10.
Also check CPU prices - there is no AMD dual core below $60 with artificially sold single cores for $40.
Basically while the performance you can buy at $60 has gone up 2x over last 3 yrs on ADM side, their $40 offing is now useless while previously it was relatively reasonable.
AMD sees no competition from Intel there => no low end dual cores.
iamkyle - Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - link
For the majority of the market out there, you may be getting to a level where the performance of the CPU is good for what, embedded applications? Linux servers that can be run on used hardware for $20? Niche applications.At least there is speed at the low price points to fulfill a multitude of uses.
Taft12 - Friday, September 24, 2010 - link
I would think AMD's can't sell any CPU for less than about $65 without going deep into the red on every unit. Think about raw material costs, electricity, clean room maintenance, shipping, packaging, ... This is before accounting for any R&D or payroll for a single employee!Similarly, I think we're at an absolute floor at about $40 right now for hard drives.
SonicIce - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - link
good article and good cpu's. you should highlight which chips are the new ones in the beginning chart