AMD's Phenom X3 8000 Series: Fighting Two Cores with Three?
by Anand Lal Shimpi on April 23, 2008 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Overall System Performance - SYSMark 2007
SYSMark 2007 is an application benchmark suite that plays back real world usage scenarios in four categories (E-Learning, Video Creation, Productivity and 3D), using the following applications:
Adobe After Effects 7
Adobe Illustrator CS2
Adobe Photoshop CS2
AutoDesk 3ds Max 8
Macromedia Flash 8
Microsoft Excel 2003
Microsoft Outlook 2003
Microsoft PowerPoint 2003
Microsoft Word 2003
Microsoft Project 2003
Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 9 series
Sony Vegas 7
SketchUp 5
WinZip 10.0
Performance is measured in each individual category and then an overall score is reported.
AMD's Phenom continues to suffer under SYSMark, looking at overall system performance - Intel's Core 2 lineup is just stronger. The fastest triple-core CPU is on par with Intel's $133 dual-core E4700. It's also worth mentioning that the triple-core Phenom CPUs are barely any faster than the higher clocked, dual-core Athlon X2s.
Also pay close attention to the Core 2 Duo E7200, this little beauty manages to offer better performance than the E6550 despite having a slightly smaller L2 cache and slower FSB (3MB vs. 4MB and 1066MHz vs. 1333MHz).
The E-Learning suite mostly echoes what we saw in the overall SYSMark results.
The Video Creation tests have the triple-core Phenom X3 far more competitive, the fastest entry in the chart is actually the Phenom X4 9750.
The last two test suites show results in-line with what we've already seen under SYSMark: AMD's Phenom wasnt particularly speedy with four cores, and disabling one of them doesn't help any.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
45 Comments
View All Comments
Locutus465 - Thursday, April 24, 2008 - link
how do you justify this position when comparing the platforms as a whole, particularly taking into consideration budget platforms with integrated graphics.Roy2001 - Thursday, April 24, 2008 - link
For HTPC, 780G paired with a 5600+ is enough. Actually, a E2200 can decode any HD/BD movies, who cares chipset?For multicore usage, get a Q6600/Q9450, gamers wang a E8400/E7200. Period.
Roy2001 - Thursday, April 24, 2008 - link
For HTPC, 780G paired with a 5600+ is enough. Actually, a E2200 can decode any HD/BD movies, who cares chipset?For multicore usage, get a Q6600/Q9450, gamers wang a E8400/E7200. Period.
Nihility - Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - link
Great review!The power consumption test seems to indicate the X3 requires less power per core than the X4. A 25% decrease in system power consumption after removing 1 core seems to prove that.
I was hoping for an overclocking test. Naturally I assume it would be just as bad as the X4 version but due to the lower power requirements I'm curious if AMD managed to improve it.
Schugy - Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - link
The Phenom X3 is a great CPU just as the X4 but there's a lot of outdated software. It's obvious that the Phenom likes software that is frequently updated with its capabilities in mind. The Phenom has a lot of horsepower for Nero Recode (Imagine 45nm and 3GHz or more), Main Concept-Encoder, LDAP, UT3, AutoMKV but some software makers are extremely good in wasting it.bpl442 - Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - link
Nvidia Geforce 7100 / nforce 630i based motherboards like the Gigabyte GA-73PVM-S2."Unfortunately, Intel is in a not-so-great position right now when it comes to its platforms. It can't turn to ATI anymore for integrated graphics solutions, and with a full out war on NVIDIA brewing, it's left alone to provide chipsets for its processors as NVIDIA's latest IGP solutions are not yet available for Intel CPUs."
nubie - Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - link
I think they are referring to the 8200/8300 series, and the like with full HD decode, also possibly 65nm/55nm so that the power usage is less.nVidia isn't ready yet for Intel. (personally I don't care for onboard graphics, mainly because of their lack of TV outputs, and it seems that they are being skipped over entirely and switched to HDMI/DisplayPort if anything, I did once own a 6150 with S-Video/Composite/Component output, but that is the exception to the rule. And still no HD decode.)
FodderMAN - Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - link
Why does no one test these at faster HT speeds?I still stand by the statement I have made time and again that these processors are being castrated by the 200FSB HT speeds. If you run a classic athlon64 at 233, 250, or even 266 ( when attainable ) these processors start to really outshine Intel’s procs. And I can only see phenom being that much stronger. Now I know this is considered an overclock as AMD has zero procs at the higher bus speeds. This would help AMD's revenues as they would be able to add another product code for procs running various FSB / HT speeds even though they would shrink the multiplier range as these cores seem to run into stability problems at about 2.6 - 2.8ghz.
PLEASE someone do a test at higher bus speeds so we can refer AMD to published numbers. I guess for the time being I will have to wait for a good 6 phase powered board before I buy my phenom and do the testing myself. But I always had great luck with the classic ath64's when upping the FSB / HT speeds and lowering the multipliers. The athlon64 always showed great promise at 250-266 FSB/HT and I can only imaging how well they would run at a 333 FSB / HT speed.
Time will tell,
The Goat
retrospooty - Thursday, April 24, 2008 - link
"a classic athlon64 at 233, 250, or even 266 ( when attainable ) these processors start to really outshine Intel’s procs."There isnt any situation at all, where AMD is outshining Intel CPU these days. If you OC the AMD to 266, you can OC the Intel to 500+ FSB, and AMD isnt outshing anything, not in speed, performance, power, overclockability, or bang for your buck. Intel is winning by all measurements.
Assimilator87 - Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - link
According to the guys at XS, raising the HT reference clock doesn't affect Phenom's performance in any way. It's the effective HT clock that matters, which is currently 1800Mhz using a multi of 9.