AMD's Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 13, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
3dsmax 9 - SPECapc 3dsmax CPU Rendering Test
Today's desktop processors are more than fast enough to do professional level 3D rendering at home. To look at performance under 3dsmax we ran the SPECapc 3dsmax 8 benchmark (only the CPU rendering tests) under 3dsmax 9 SP1. The results reported are the rendering composite scores:
While the Phenom II X4 965 BE is able to roughly equal the Q9650 in performance, it's unable to come close to any of the i7s. In our Lynnfield preview we found that without Lynnfield's aggressive turbo modes, a 2.66GHz i5 750 would still be faster than the Q9650 so it doesn't look like Lynnfield will tip things in AMD's favor here either.
Cinebench R10
Created by the Cinema 4D folks we have Cinebench, a popular 3D rendering benchmark that gives us both single and multi-threaded 3D rendering results.
Single threaded performance is clearly an area where the i7 920 can't use Hyper Threading to its advantage. The 965 BE is second only to the i7 965.
Once more, other than the i7 processors you can't touch the 965 BE. Depending on how well Lynnfield's turbo works, AMD could even be competitive against the entry level Core i5.
POV-Ray 3.73 beta 23 Ray Tracing Performance
POV-Ray is a popular, open-source ray tracing application that also doubles as a great tool to measure CPU floating point performance.
I ran the SMP benchmark in beta 23 of POV-Ray 3.73. The numbers reported are the final score in pixels per second.
More of the same, the 965 BE is the fastest non i7 processor on the block. Even Lynnfield may find it difficult to significantly outperform the Phenom II flagship here.
Blender 2.48a
Blender is an open source 3D modeling application. Our benchmark here simply times how long it takes to render a character that comes with the application.
All of the DDR3 Phenom IIs are actually slower in our Blender test, but it doesn't matter since the app seems to heavily favor Intel CPUs.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
54 Comments
View All Comments
MODEL3 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
Well if it's true that Core i5 750 is going to launch at 6th of September at 196$,then the only option for AMD is to drop the price around what you suggested! (199$)
Traditionally AMD official pricing translates around 5% lower (in actual street price) than Intel equivalent price
(although in the recent years Intel had various questionable tactics like direct rebates to Retailers & to System Builders without a specific sales target - in the Europe region)
I just hope that AMD is clever to understand, that in no way has to release a higher clocked model (975 3,6GHz, & 985 3,8GHz)
before Intel release in Q1 2010 & in Q3 2010 the higher clocked models of i5 7XX (i5 760 2,8GHz & i5 770 2,93GHz) (if this is indeed the Intel future roadmap at 196$)
Already some sites, that are with Intel side can easily fix the testing method, in order the Core i5 750 to appear more powerful than even a future 975 3,6GHz!
The performance difference between Phenom II architecture & Nehalem architecture can have wide variation depending on the testing method!
So if Intel wants, it can influence some sites to use specific methods to declare a Core i5 750 better than even a future 975 3,6GHz!
What good will do to AMD to release a 975 at a 245$ in Q4 2009?
Of cource AMD can price it at at 219$ (20$ difference with 965) but the whole situation is becoming depressing (they are fighting for +20$ for only a quarter until Q1 2010)
Well, i guess they must make everything, in order to survive!
GeorgeH - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
"AMD ought to get rid of the Xn suffix and just use simple model numbers at this point."I understand what you're saying, but I think it's the most straightforward processor naming scheme in a long time. You get the architecture, cores, relative speed, and locked/unlocked instantly. Unless AMD is going to stop selling 2 and 3 core chips and never offer more than 4 cores in the consumer space, I say keep the "Xn".
Intel could really learn from AMD here; from your writeup on ix branding, I fully expect to be needing a decoder ring to figure out what a particular i3/i5/i7 really is.
Drazick - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
It seems Intel advantage is more about optimization than much better processor, is this assumption true?Why isn't AMD put efforts into that?
Thanks.
Drazick - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
It should be easy to create some test scenarios and measure time.Many High End users use those kind of software.
GourdFreeMan - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
The problem with benchmarking such packages is that depending on their target application they will not stress systems in a uniform way. Large matrix computation will likely be bound by memory bandwidth, while numeric computation at machine precision will hinge on FPU/SSE performance, and symbolic calculations will largely be bound by integer and branching performance. There isn't one uniform application that is representative of the needs of all scientists and engineers.XtAzY - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
I got my i7 920 for $200 at MicroCenter, much cheaper than $280 online deals! This AMD definately does not worth $245!!Griswold - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
And how much did you pay for the mobo and triple channel kit, dumbass?Exar3342 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
LOL, your the dumbass. :)6GB triple Channel - (Newegg) $85.00
8GB dual channel (newegg) $95.00
X58 MB - $165-175
AM3 MB $85-120
So you are talking a difference or $40-60, which if you can get the i7 at Microcenter (I was there last week and they had a ton) erases any price differences.
Griswold - Saturday, August 15, 2009 - link
Oh, lets look at the other article anand just put up, dumbass. Your shit doesnt quite add up...rhog - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
Since when can you get a "good" x58 for lest than 200?I assume the 200 Bucks is a Mail in rebate price as well. I own 2 i7 920 great processor but hardly any faster at 3.6ghz than a 3.8ghz AMD 955 (at most 20%) which is in line with the "real" 100-125 Buck difference in cost. You can get a really nice Video card upgrade for that money. Don't forget the i7 920 never runs at 2.6ghz but always overclocks itself making it hard to do a good clock for clock comparison. The AMD 965 is better than Core2 and I doubt that the Core i5 will be faster than a Core i7 so they should compete well. Oh, and the Core i5 will overclock itself as well I here as much a 3 mults