• What
    is this?
    You've landed on the AMD Portal on AnandTech. This section is sponsored by AMD. It features a collection of all of our independent AMD content, as well as Tweets & News from AMD directly. AMD will also be running a couple of huge giveaways here so check back for those.
    PRESENTED BY

AMD is usually pretty aggressive with turning process tweaks and yield improvements into new products. Just two months ago AMD gave us the Athlon II X3 450 and the Phenom II X2 565, today we're getting speed bumps of both of those parts. The Athlon II X3 455 runs at 3.3GHz, up from 3.2GHz and costs the same $87. You get an additional 100MHz for free. The chip hasn't changed otherwise. You get a quad-core die with one core disabled, no L3 cache and a 512KB L2 per core.

At $87 this part competes head to head with Intel's Pentium G6950. The Athlon II X3 450 mopped the floor with the G6950 in our last review, and the speed bumped 455 will be no different in this review. If you CPU budget is right around the $80 - $90 mark, AMD has you covered.

The Phenom II X2 565 is an unlocked Black Edition part, also identical to its predecessors. Here you have a quad-core die with two cores disabled, a 512KB L2 per core and a shared 6MB L3. The 565 runs at 3.4GHz, up from 3.3GHz, but the clock increase comes with a $10 price increase.

The 565 goes up against Intel's Core i3 540 and 550 processors. The comparison here is less clear cut. In the case of the Athlon II X3, you get more cores for the same money which really helps AMD out. The 565 by default doesn't give you any more cores, all you get is a higher clock speed and a larger L3 cache. But you lose out on IPC, threaded performance and power consumption. While AMD easily wins between $80 - $90, around $110 - $120 the choice moves back towards Intel. There is just one more thing however.

Both the Athlon II X3 and Phenom II X2 are made from harvested die. As we've seen in the past, these harvested die aren't always bad. In the case of the Phenom II X2 we've seen a number of CPUs with disabled cores that could just as easily be re-enabled. Armed with ASUS' M4A89GTD Pro/USB 3 890GX motherboard I tried to see if I could enable any of the disabled cores on the two samples AMD sent me.

In the case of the Athlon II X3, enabling the fourth core wasn't a problem. ASUS' Core Unlocker enabled it and the system was just as stable as before, now with four fully functional cores. I could even overclock the four cores just as far as I could overclock the chip with only three cores enabled.

I managed to get three working cores on the Phenom II X2, however I couldn't boot into Windows 7 with the fourth core enabled.


A Phenom II X2 565: Overclocked and with one additional core unlocked

In the case of the $87 Athlon II X3 turning into an $87 Athlon II X4, you can't get better than that. Your mileage will most definitely vary. I've had Phenom II X2s that would work as quad core parts, triple core parts and refuse to work at all above two cores. The same goes for the Athlon II line. You can't count on core unlocking working, but if it does, it's great additional value.

The Phenom II X6 1100T

The six-core Phenom II X6 gets a speed bump as well. The 1100T increases default clock speeds from 3.2GHz to 3.3GHz, and increases Turbo Core frequency from 3.6GHz to 3.7GHz. Turbo Core is only supported on Thuban based processors (currently only Phenom II X6s) and increases operating frequency if half or fewer cores are actively in use.

The bigger news here is the 1100T reflects AMD's new Phenom II X6 pricing:

Processor Clock Speed L2 Cache L3 Cache TDP Price
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T BE 3.3GHz 3MB 6MB 125W $265
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T BE 3.2GHz 3MB 6MB 125W $235
AMD Phenom II X6 1075T 3.0GHz 3MB 6MB 125W $199
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T 2.8GHz 3MB 6MB 125W $195
AMD Phenom II X4 970 BE 3.5GHz 2MB 6MB 125W $185
AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE 3.4GHz 2MB 6MB 125W $165
AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE 3.2GHz 2MB 6MB 125W $145
AMD Phenom II X2 565 BE 3.4GHz 1MB 6MB 80W $115
AMD Phenom II X2 560 BE 3.3GHz 1MB 6MB 80W $105
AMD Phenom II X2 555 BE 3.2GHz 1MB 6MB 80W $93
AMD Athlon II X4 645 3.1GHz 2MB 0MB 95W $122
AMD Athlon II X4 640 3.0GHz 2MB 0MB 95W $100
AMD Athlon II X3 455 3.3GHz 1.5MB 0MB 95W $87
AMD Athlon II X3 450 3.2GHz 1.5MB 0MB 95W $87
AMD Athlon II X3 445 3.1GHz 1.5MB 0MB 95W $76
AMD Athlon II X2 265 3.3GHz 2MB 0MB 65W $76
AMD Athlon II X2 260 3.2GHz 2MB 0MB 65W $69
AMD Athlon II X2 255 3.1GHz 2MB 0MB 65W $66

At $265 this puts the 1100T between the Core i5 760 and the Core i7 860. While the Core i7 860 still has the edge in some of our tests, the 1100T is within striking distance and cheaper. In heavily threaded apps, the 1100T's six cores really come in handy and give AMD the win. Combine the two and you can get a better value. However Intel still holds the advantage in lightly threaded scenarios thanks to the i5/i7 aggressive turbo modes.

The Test

To keep the review length manageable we're presenting a subset of our results here. For all benchmark results and even more comparisons be sure to use our performance comparison tool: Bench.

We've moved all of our AMD CPU testing to the 890GX platform. While nearly all numbers are comparable you may occasionally see some scaling that doesn't quite add up compared to lower clocked versions of the same chips running on a previous motherboard.

Motherboard: ASUS P7H57DV- EVO (Intel H57)
Intel DP55KG (Intel P55)
Intel DX58SO (Intel X58)
Intel DX48BT2 (Intel X48)
ASUS M4A89GTD Pro/USB3 (AMD 890GX)
Chipset Drivers: Intel 9.1.1.1015 (Intel)
AMD Catalyst 8.12
Hard Disk: Intel X25-M SSD (80GB)
Memory: Corsair DDR3-1333 4 x 1GB (7-7-7-20)
Corsair DDR3-1333 2 x 2GB (7-7-7-20)
Video Card: eVGA GeForce GTX 280 (Vista 64)
ATI Radeon HD 5870 (Windows 7)
Video Drivers: ATI Catalyst 9.12 (Windows 7)
NVIDIA ForceWare 180.43 (Vista64)
NVIDIA ForceWare 178.24 (Vista32)
Desktop Resolution: 1920 x 1200
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit (for SYSMark)
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit
Windows 7 x64
SYSMark 2007 & Photoshop Performance
POST A COMMENT

65 Comments

View All Comments

  • vol7ron - Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - link

    "today we're getting speed bumps"

    Usually this term is associated with a slow down, not a push forward - you slow down at the speed bump. It's sort of like how you don't associate a stop sign with accelerating as fast as you can, which many do right after.

    Other Thoughts: Perhaps you meant speed burst?
    Reply
  • fic2 - Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - link

    Apparently you don't know that words can have multiple meanings.
    See #5 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bump

    bump (bmp)
    v. bumped, bump·ing, bumps
    v.tr.
    1. To strike or collide with.
    2. To cause to knock against an obstacle.
    3.
    a. To knock to a new position; shift: bumped the crate out of the way.
    b. To shake up and down; jolt: bumped the child on her knee; was bumped about on a rough flight.
    4.
    a. To displace from a position within a group or organization.
    b. To deprive (a passenger) of a reserved seat because of overbooking.
    5. To raise; boost: bump up the price of gasoline.
    6. Sports To pass (a volleyball) by redirecting it with the forearms.
    Reply
  • jabber - Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - link

    We shall see. If Intel has been 100% successful and reliable in one aspect of computing its dissapointing with its GPU performance.

    Always a lot of bluster and pre-release pomp about how it will be many times better than the previous piece of crap and then it hits the floor like a dead moose dropped from 50 feet.

    I dont see that changing radically.
    Reply
  • kwantor - Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - link

    How does that work exactly?

    On 2560x yes, you should get 100+fps on 1024x.
    Reply
  • MrSpadge - Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - link

    They're using "Ultra CPU" settings to stress the CPUs. People are probably not really running the game like this.

    MrS
    Reply
  • nitrousoxide - Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - link

    It will be bulldozed by eight-core SNB-E, but surely it will bulldoze quad-core SNBs. Reply
  • flyck - Wednesday, December 08, 2010 - link

    lets wait and see shall we. If each BD core is faster then each K8 core it might be very close to it. Reply
  • MrSpadge - Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - link

    Not sure about the US, but here in Germany the i7 860 has effectively been replaced by the i7 870 since a couple of months. It's 1 - 2 multipliers faster for a small price premium. Currently the 1100T is actually priced a hair above the 870.

    Given the approxiamte tie in threaded apps and wins for the 870 in lightly threaded apps and power consumption at any load level I'd certainly go with that one.

    MrS
    Reply
  • dertechie - Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - link

    They're comparing to i7 860 since they already have one on hand to play with, I suspect. Reply
  • mapesdhs - Tuesday, December 07, 2010 - link


    MrSpadge is right; when I went looking for one recently, I noticed many
    stores had the 860 priced higher than the 870, or the gap was so small
    that the 860 made no sense. So I bought an 870 instead.

    Btw, it's a bit misleading IMO to include AMD oc results and yet not at
    least briefly mention how well the Intel chips also oc, especially given earlier
    reviews here of the i3 and other options, eg. I get 6.88 for Cinebench 11 with
    my oc'd 870, 20442 for Cinebench 10 (and this isn't on the high side either).

    I've found the 870 to oc better than my older 860 aswell, and not just because
    of the base clock difference. It just seems to work better. I'm sure I could push
    it to 4.5+, but there's no need for this on a gaming rig with two GTX 460s SLI.
    Indeed, so far I find game fps scores are better with HT turned off and a
    higher CPU clock, so even more headroom is possible (confirmed this effect
    with 3DMark06, Unigine Heaven, Stalker COP and X3TC so far). With the
    same Vcore/VTT, my 870 was ok at 4444 instead of 4270 with HT off, and
    temps were lower. If you want max 3DMark06 overall scores, leave HT on;
    to max out game fps rates though, try turning HT off and increase the raw
    clock (I'd like to know which games benefits from HT - none of my current
    tests show any gain).

    Hmm, the '3dsmax 9 - SPECapc' test looks interesting, might give that a spin.
    Is that a separate download to Viewperf 11?

    Ian.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now