AMD's Phenom X4 9950, 9350e and 9150e: Lower Prices, Voltage Tricks and Strange Behavior
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Gary Key on July 1, 2008 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Adobe Photoshop CS3 Performance
Having figured out the source of our strange Photoshop results we're finally able to use the Retouch Artists Photoshop CS3 benchmark once again, timing a handful of image manipulation operations in CS3:
Let's start at the top: the Phenom X4 9950, with its $225 price point is within reach of the Core 2 Quad Q9300. The 9960 is also faster than the Q6600, although the latter carries a cheap $200 street price. The slower 9850 is a better match for the Q6600 and the two end up performing about the same. Power consumption is higher on the two Phenom parts but the point is that AMD is finally competitive here.
At the mid range, AMD is similarly competitive - priced at $175 it performs slightly worse than the Core 2 Duo E8400, the best competitor since Intel doesn't have a quad-core quite that cheap.
The new energy efficient processors prove to be mostly worthless here, we've already established that you can achieve similar power levels using a cheaper 9550, and better performance at the same time.
The X3s are also much more competitive now, with the 8650 and 8450 performing around the level of a Core 2 Duo E7200, while being priced very similarly.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
View All Comments
Regs - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link
Between cool n' quite and flimsy power management, it just seems like AMD overshot their goals. Though to me, it seems like they could easily be fixed in Shanghai, but that's if they can keep all four cores busy instead I have 3 cores at stall, and one pumping at max in threaded or shared instruction instances. This will though cause more power consumption, and I think you guys all ready said that mobo support is just not their to power these suckers. You can have your cake, you just cant eat it.What do you goes think about AMD at 2.6 GHz? Looks more competitive stacked up to Intel's finniest at the given price point. Just makes me wonder if the over complicated power management features are keeping AMD from hitting 3.0 GHz or above. What do you think is holding AMD back?
DigitalFreak - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link
Shitty engineering?Griswold - Wednesday, July 2, 2008 - link
Well, I dont know for sure. But its definitely not moronic comments from dumbasses such as you.Assimilator1 - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link
Yeah it looks like they've messed up the clock speeds for the lower Phenoms too, lol.Aries1470 - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link
Hi,Just found the following strange:
AMD Phenom X4 9850 $205
AMD Phenom X4 9750 $215
The slower one is more expensive, while in the article it has the prices reversed?
"The new Phenom X4 9950 will occupy the $235 space, which will push the 9850 down to $215. The Phenom 9750 will go away temporarily to make room for the new chips at the high end, leaving the 9650 at $195 and the 9550 at $175."
I wonder which one is correct ;-) Hmm... I think a proof reader and an eye for detail is needed :-)
Ok, now for me to read the rest of the article.
Btw, any update on the new VIA Nano CPU - Codename Isaiah? Will there be a review? It is as fast as a 9150e or faster at the same clock speed? It has much less power usage. Now if someone over here could do a review or get more info that would be great, since it is like there is no other x86 competitor out there...
That's all from me.
Gary Key - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link
The 9750 pricing will not be changed by AMD officially and thankfully that model is being phased out in the retail sector and replaced by the 9850BE.I have a picture of the VIA Nano PR flag from Computex and a handout explaining how it should perform. That is about as far as VIA is willing to go at this point with information. I did hear from some OEMS that VIA was not even close to getting the CPU out this summer as originally thought, much less advanced reviews. However, we do push them on an almost daily basis for it.