Higher Clock Speeds, No TLB Issues and Better Pricing: The New Phenom
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 27, 2008 12:00 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.
The new Phenom processors are finally within striking range of Intel, while the Q6600 still manages a 7% lead over the X4 9850 the latter is priced a bit cheaper and thus is within the realm of competition.
The fact that the dual core Athlon 64 X2 6400+ manages to almost equal the performance of the 9750 illustrates two points:
1) AMD desperately needs to increase clock speeds of its Phenom line, and
2) Most applications still don't benefit tremendously from four cores, paving the way for AMD's triple core Phenom X3 to clean up in the $150 - $200 space.
The productivity test shows us something very interesting - the Core 2 Quad Q9300's 6MB of L2 cache (3MB shared per pair of cores) actually makes it slightly slower than the outgoing Q6600, which has a full 8MB (4MB per pair of cores). The rest of the numbers indicate that this is obviously not a problem elsewhere, but it's still worth noting.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
65 Comments
View All Comments
ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
What!!!! How darest though speak such blasphemy!AMD is your king! Bow to PHENOM!!! :) LOL
sorry feeling a little silly today.
hvypetals - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Why are the Intel core 2 duo's outperforming the intel quad core cpus?Is it because the games cant see beyond a dual core?
ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Thats why I got the E8400 and clocked it to 3.6 ghz, it was cheap and it does very well for gamers....ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Oh wait I could have saved 20 bucks and got a much slower AMD. Crap...ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Then I would have had an AWESOME slow CPU instead of a CRAPPY much faster CPU....Roy2001 - Monday, March 31, 2008 - link
Wow, that's superb logic!fitten - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
Most games can't "see beyond" one core, much less two, three, or four.nycromes - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
This is what I expected from AMD and from all of you here making comments. It has always astounded me that people will act like these chips are the equivalent of a 500mhz chip compared to Intel's chips. Its like saying my car has 375hp and yours only has 370, my car is soo much better than yours. The difference is there, but for most people, the difference is quite negligable.The differences amount to almost nothing depending on application. Sure there are better parts out there, but competition drives markets to innovate and will bring down prices. Oh how awful. The intel fanboys can ride their high horses still, but AMD releasing better products benefits us all. Try taking your heads out of that little box and looking at the big picture.
I like to see AMD working on new products and hopefully they can get more competitive. We all need to be hoping for this so we don't see slowdowns in development and skyrocketing chip prices. I mean, look at the GPU industry compared to a few years ago and tell me that the situation is great for consumers. More competition = happier consumers. nuf said.
ap90033 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
you are right, and you obviously dont game. Intel=FPS=FTWmark3450 - Thursday, March 27, 2008 - link
What a complete strawman. Look at the data, the best Phenom chip is getting beated by the q6600 by 20% in real world performance, not the 1% in your idotic horsepower strawman attack.Yes everyone understands that the lack of competion isn't good. The reason people bitch at AMD is that they want AMD to have a competative offereing, but that data clear says they don't. They know because of that there isn't going to be any competition in the CPU market for a long time. Yes that isn't good, but sticking your head in the sand and denying the reality of the situation doesn't help.