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
Gaming Performance
Supreme Commander
Supreme Commander is a popular RTS (Real Time Strategy) title that can be very CPU dependent. Our benchmark involves playing back, as fast as possible, a 4-person match and recording the simulation time for the replay in seconds.
We ran Supreme Commander at 1920 x 1200 with High fidelity presets, v-sync was disabled.
None of the AMD CPUs manage to do well here at all and despite Supreme Commander's ability to utilize more than two cores, the added benefit is small enough that triple-core doesn't really do much at all. Here we have another example of the Phenom X3 8450 performing on-par with the similarly priced Athlon X2s.
Crysis
The most demanding FPS on the market right now is Crysis, and we couldn't resist using it as a benchmark. We ran at 1024 x 768 with Medium Quality defaults and used the game's built in CPU benchmark.
Clock speed is king under Crysis and thus the fastest AMD processor is the old 90nm Athlon X2 6000+ running at 3.0GHz, unfortunately not even it is really fast enough to be competitive here. Armed with low clock speeds, Phenom need not apply.
Half Life 2 Episode Two
Half Life 2 continues the trend: the architectural enhancements of Phenom aren't enough to overcome its horrendously low clock speeds, the fastest AMD chip here is the aging Athlon X2.
Unreal Tournament 3
We finally see some balance in Unreal Tournament 3 thanks to some clever multi-threaded development. Here we see that modern code can run faster on Phenom than the Athlon X2, despite being at a significant clock speed disadvantage. Even compared to Intel, AMD manages to remain reasonably competitive but never quite superior.
Valve Map Compilation
Valve supplied us with their VRAD map compilation tool to measure the performance of compiling Source engine maps.
Valve's VRAD map compilation test scales very well with multiple cores and thus the Phenom X3 is pretty competitive here. AMD doesn't have the clock speed to compete against Intel's 3.0GHz E8400, so it must compete with more cores and it's exactly what we see here. The X3 8750 only runs at 2.4GHz but manages to perform on par with the 3.0GHz Core 2 Duo E8400 thanks to having that third core, which in this case is well utilized.
Unfortunately the map compilation test highlights a major issue with the triple-core strategy. Just as AMD is banking on not many applications needing quad-core, most applications don't need tri-core either and if you're running an application that doesn't benefit from three cores then the Phenom X3 behaves like a dual-core chip with a low clock speed. It's only in these well-threaded applications that triple-core can really shine, and they unfortunately aren't always the most common.
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.