AMD Athlon II X4 620 & 630: The First $99 Quad Core CPU
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 16, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Adobe Photoshop CS4 Performance
To measure performance under Photoshop CS4 we turn to the Retouch Artists’ Speed Test. The test does basic photo editing; there are a couple of color space conversions, many layer creations, color curve adjustment, image and canvas size adjustment, unsharp mask, and finally a gaussian blur performed on the entire image.
The whole process is timed and thanks to the use of Intel's X25-M SSD as our test bed hard drive, performance is far more predictable than back when we used to test on mechanical disks.
Time is reported in seconds and the lower numbers mean better performance. The test is multithreaded and can hit all four cores in a quad-core machine.
Photoshop performance is actually very good on these chips, the extra cores help make them faster than even a Phenom II X3 720. For $99 you're getting better Photoshop performance than even more expensive dual core processors.
The Pentium E6300 isn't competitive here, despite being Intel's closest priced processor. The Q8200 is faster than both of these options, but it's also more expensive. Again, AMD priced the 620 on point.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
150 Comments
View All Comments
silverblue - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link
Except for you I suppose?Imagine you own a car with a turbocharger. When you accelerate, the turbo just happens to kick in. Is it illegal for the manufacturer to have put the turbo in there in the first place?
I agree it's not a completely parallel analogy due to the fact that a turbocharger provides a free power boost from otherwise wasted energy, but the point is that it's a part of the design and people have, and always will, accept that.
How are the Lynnfield's results false? It clearly states in the nomenclature that the Lynnfield possesses a turbo mode designed so that the processor operates at a higher clock speed for a stated number of cores dependent on the load being imposed upon it. Imagine if a new SIMD instruction set appears and only AMD processors can use it, and software is accelerated as a result - is this illegal?
I feel my intelligence slipping away as I try to reason with you.
the zorro - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link
turbo overclocking is just overclocking, nothing else.overclocked results are illegal if you try to present them as stock speed results.
you can call overclocking 'banana' if you want, but still that banana is illegal
Kaleid - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
There is nothing illegal about it. Repeating it doesn't make it so.silverblue - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link
But they haven't! Why can't you see this?Let me put it another way. In single core mode, with turbo enabled, the i5 750 is clocked at 3.2GHz. The Phenom II X4 965 BE is STILL clocked at 3.4GHz and it STILL loses. And guess what, add turbo to more cores and they all slow down, thus making the 965 BE look even worse in most situations as its clock speed gap increases even further.
I've read over those 3.8GHz results. No turbo mode (not illegal, then!). i5 still wins most of the benches. Granted, some of the tests are Intel-optimised applications, but a) it's not Intel's fault that AMD optimisations are lacking from specific programs, and b) in games with no specific optimisations for either architecture, the Lynnfield is still going to win because even with turbo enabled, the i5 750 is STILL clocked lower than the 965 BE and it's STILL equalling or beating AMD's strongest CPU.
End of.
the zorro - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link
don't fool yourself by over-thinking to justify an illegal activity.turbo overclocking is just overclocking.
and phenom 2 955 beats core i5 750 at stocks speeds, that is lynnfield without overclocking.
lynnfield is a failure, because when overclocked to 4ghz temps are almost 100C. and power compsumption skycket.
phenom 2 overclocked to 4ghz is cool at 55C.
the zorro - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link
if you overclock phenom 2 955 the same 600 mhz that lynnfield is overclocked, it wipes and mops the floor with lynnfield 750.strikeback03 - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link
Umm, check your numbers again. Unless you want to claim a 955 at 3.8GHz would perform differently than a 965 at 3.8 GHz. See here: http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3639&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3639&am...All the 3.8GHz numbers are clock-for-clock, with no turbo (and no HT since the 750 doesn't have it) and the only test where the 965 tops the 750 is the Lightwave3D portion of the multitasking test. The 750 does beat the 965 in the overall multitasking test.
the zorro - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link
as you can see, at stock speed, when lynnfield 750 has turbo overclocking off, then phenom 2 965 annihilates lynnfield.look at all the tests.
strikeback03 - Friday, September 18, 2009 - link
Well, yes, a 965@3.4GHz does beat a 750@2.66GHz, AMD's architecture isn't that far behind in most cases. But the only ones likely to leave the clocks stock are OEMs, who will also leave the turbo mode which seems to be the bane of your existence turned on. In stock configuration for both processors and looking at only the tests Gary conducted in the above article, the 965 carries advantages of 10%, 19%, -8%, -2%, -6%, 7%, and 12% over the 750. Using pricegrabber, Newegg has the best prices for each right now, at $199.99 for the 750 and $245 for the 965BE. This is a 22.5% difference in price, the performance gain is not that high in any of the tests. This is also ignoring all the tests in Anand's i5/i7 launch article, the majority of which the 750 topped the 965 in.mdk77777 - Thursday, September 17, 2009 - link
You buy a new Computer every five minutes?Really, I5 750 started shipping like a few days ago.
Competitive product, but requires a new MB.
Declare the end of the war after 1 Second of battle doesn't make much sense.