AMD Carrizo Part 2: A Generational Deep Dive into the Athlon X4 845 at $70
by Ian Cutress on July 14, 2016 9:00 AM ESTStock Comparison: Legacy Benchmarks
Some of our legacy benchmarks have followed AnandTech for over a decade, showing how performance changes when the code bases stay the same in that period. Some of this software is still in common use today.
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
3D Particle Movement v1
3DPM is a self-penned benchmark, taking basic 3D movement algorithms used in Brownian Motion simulations and testing them for speed. High floating point performance, MHz and IPC wins in the single thread version, whereas the multithread version has to handle the threads and loves more cores. This is the original version, written in the style of a typical non-computer science student coding up an algorithm for their theoretical problem, and comes without any non-obvious optimizations not already performed by the compiler, such as false sharing.
Despite 3DPM v1's coding issues, the multithreaded result is a lot closer than I had originally expected.
Cinebench 11.5 and 10
Cinebench is a widely known benchmarking tool for measuring performance relative to MAXON's animation software Cinema 4D. Cinebench has been optimized over a decade and focuses on purely CPU horsepower, meaning if there is a discrepancy in pure throughput characteristics, Cinebench is likely to show that discrepancy. Arguably other software doesn't make use of all the tools available, so the real world relevance might purely be academic, but given our large database of data for Cinebench it seems difficult to ignore a small five minute test. We run the modern version 15 in this test, as well as the older 11.5 and 10 due to our back data.
In both CineBench instances we see the high IPC of the Pentium take a 33-50% lead, whereas moving to multi-threaded puts the X4 845 firmly in the driving seat.
POV-Ray 3.7
POV-Ray is a common ray-tracing tool used to generate realistic looking scenes. We've used POV-Ray in its various guises over the years as a good benchmark for performance, as well as a tool on the march to ray-tracing limited immersive environments. We use the built-in multithreaded benchmark.
POV-Ray fully exploints all the threads in the system, and the latest AMD microarchitecture helps here as well, pushing the X4 845 beyond the other AMD CPUs in this test and comfortably over the Pentium and low-power Core i3 parts.
TrueCrypt 7.1
Before its discontinuation, TrueCrypt was a popular tool for WindowsXP to offer software encryption to a file system. The almost latest version, 7.1, is still widely used however the developers have stopped supporting it since the introduction of encrypted disk support in Windows 8/7/Vista from 5/2014, and as such any new security issues are unfixed.
The Pentium lacks AES acceleration, which is available on Core i3 parts and up, which explains the Pentium's low performance here. The Carrizo microarchitecture pushes the 65W part ahead of all the other 95W/100W/125W parts.
x264 HD 3.0
Similarly, the x264 HD 3.0 package we use here is also kept for historic regressional data. The latest version is 5.0.1, and encodes a 1080p video clip into a high quality x264 file. Version 3.0 only performs the same test on a 720p file, and in most circumstances the software performance hits its limit on high end processors, but still works well for mainstream and low-end. Also, this version only takes a few minutes, whereas the latest can take over 90 minutes to run.
7-zip
7-Zip is a freeware compression/decompression tool that is widely deployed across the world. We run the included benchmark tool using a 50MB library and take the average of a set of fixed-time results.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
131 Comments
View All Comments
Peichen - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link
I stopped reading at the messy chart where Athlon X4 750 is available from 2 µArch and there is no science to naming. AMD's CPU division was a bigger failure than its GPU division and it still it. I used to have 3 AMD systems at the same time back in 2005 but have steadily moved away and was considering replacing the last AMD system (Phenom II 840) using Prime Day sales.Ian Cutress - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link
The 750 and 750K are two different SKUs. As mentioned, trying to find the 750 at retail (and in stock) is *really difficult*, and I'd probably point to it being an OEM-only SKU for a certain design. If anyone has a 750/can find one, let me know.artk2219 - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - link
I found a link for one, but I think its just an OEM one, and it's from Aliexpress, so it may take a while to get to you. I hope I could help!http://www.aliexpress.com/item/AMD-Athlon-X4-750-A...
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-Athlon...
jefeweiss - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link
I don't think poignant is the word you are looking for here. That would be something that makes you very sad, or emotionally touches you deeply.wallysb01 - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link
I guess I don't totally understand the comparison to the G3258. I know its a fairly popular processor (I have its non-overclockable little brother, the G3250, and love it in a simple home office set up that I use occasionally for light gaming too). However, its 2 years old. Where is the G4500 or G4520? Supposedly the skylake Pentium would be about 10% faster than haswell, no? And with some perf/W gains too?Speaking of which, where's the comparison to Intel in the power consumption? Do I just not want to see that? If in these multithreaded tasks the 845 is chugging along using 80-85 W, while the Intel parts are still near their stated TDP, it more or less invalidates the small performance gain of the AMD chip in those tasks. Looking back at the skylake review, it seems at load the Intel chips might be using anything from 0-20% more than their TDP, this AMD chip is going 30% above.
I'd love it if AMD could push intel into offering more cores at lower price points, but this doesn't seem good enough to do that....
stardude82 - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link
Tacking on a G4500 is not terribly pertinent to the task at hand and they are just using archived results here. The comparison from the 2 i3 parts should give you an idea of relative performance. Otherwise, I'm surprised we get such an in depth review from an hollowed out Anandtech.You are confusing TDP with total system draw.
You have a "four core" CPU here for $70, what more do you want? They soundly thrash the dual-core Pentiums and i3s in some well parallelized applications. The problem is the world isn't well parallelized and the CPUs don't have 4 real cores which is why you have i3s still competitive 8 core FX chips.
yannigr2 - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link
WOW. This is an amazing work. It does explain too much about AMD's Bulldozer versions. It does explain why AMD doesn't bother to bring the full Carrizo line in desktop. It does show, at least from my perspective, that Bulldozer architecture was not a bad architecture to begin with, but a dead end from the beginning.artk2219 - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link
Sigh, poor Llano and your FM1 package, always forgotten. Granted it was the last of the stars cores, and not a bulldozer derivative, but it would still be nice to see it included with its brethren.TheinsanegamerN - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link
The last of AMD's good cores. Mobile Llano was fantastic for OCing and undervolting.artk2219 - Thursday, July 14, 2016 - link
Indeed it was/is, my fiance is still using my old Asus K53TA. I overclocked the A6 (back when A6's came with 4 cores) in that laptop to run at 2.4 instead of 1.4 for the base, and the turbo to 3Ghz. while overclocking i was able to undervolt at base clocks, and slightly overvolt the turbo clocks. In effect I got better battery life and waaayyyy better performance by just spending a little time playing with the P-States. I still think thats one of the best laptops I've ever owned in terms of reliability and capability, if only it weren't so clunky. Sigh, well you cant have it all.http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...