AMD's Phenom Unveiled: A Somber Farewell to K8
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 19, 2007 1:25 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Media Encoding Performance
We'll start with our DivX test; this is the same benchmark we've been running for years, we've simply updated to DivX 6.7. The codec was set to Unconstrained quality, with the quality/performance slider at 5 and enhanced multi-threading enabled. The rest of the codec settings remained at their defaults.
Despite the move to four cores and the improvements to the K8 architecture, the Phenom, even at 2.4GHz, is slower than the Core 2 Quad Q6600. Clock for clock, Intel has a 24% performance advantage here.
AMD did make some progress however, if we look back at some of our older numbers the gap at 3.0GHz between dual-core chips was almost 38%.
The situation gets even more bleak once you take into account that the Phenom 9700 will most likely ship when Intel's Q9450 is also available which extends Intel's lead to over 30%.
AMD has always been much more competitive at encoding using Microsoft's Windows Media Video codec:
Windows Media Encoder performance is virtually identical between the Phenom and Core 2 Quad at the same clock speed. However, once you take price into account, Intel starts to pull ahead; the Q6600 is priced competitively with the Phenom 9600 and manages a 7% performance advantage over the 9600. It's not much, but the Q6600 is also cheaper.
Our final encoding test is an increasingly popular format: x264. We encode the same .avi file from our WME test but this time using the x264 codec and AutoMKV. We didn't encode audio and left all program settings at its defaults, the only thing we changed was we asked that the final file size be 100MB (down from 500MB).
Much like our WME results, clock for clock AMD's Phenom actually equals the performance of the Core 2 Quad. Take price into account and Intel is still the right buy; it's tough to say what will happen when the Phenom 9700 and 9900 eventually launch because they may be competing against Penryn at that time, which in this case would be the Q9450, a more formidable opponent.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
124 Comments
View All Comments
eye smite - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link
Who cares what this goofball said in his review, or all you other haters. AMD is following their roadmap as they've laid it out, they released early samples cause of the noisy minority screaming for a new chip and it didn't turn out right. You think actual production chips will have these issues or not mature over the next few weeks? Good God there's alot of you people out there with unrealistic expectations and some severe perception issues. If you can't say anything worthwhile about the phenom launch, why don't you just quit typing and spare some of us that look forward to seeing this chip actually release and mature and give us a quad core that isn't the intel p3 based quad core.feelingshorter - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Thats how all AMD fans feels. I was hoping at the VERY least that AMD cpus would have a lower idle/max power usage. That would of been a sell point even if Intel CPUs are faster. Too bad AMD's processors are lacking all across the board. But as a college student, if they price it REALLY cheap, i'd be willing to stick with AMD.Regs - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
I was hoping they would of offered 2.4 GHz at around 200 dollars. This...this...is just horrible. Now I have no excuses left to not upgrade to a Intel Q.elfy6x - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
This was a very sobering article. On a slightly brighter note, Toms Hardware was able to get their Phenom to 3.0Ghz stable using air cooling, so perhaps there is some hope just yet. The nice thing is that AM2 motherboards can use this processor so the upgrade ability is theoretically friendlier than some of Intel's boards. As long as AMD prices it accordingly, I think it will do alright. It will be nice when AMD really gets going *someday* and we have another successor with a similar bang that the K8 had at its introduction.erwos - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Hint: the samples they send to reviewers tend to be hand-picked for overclocking. The fact that Tom got a good OC out of it probably means nothing.DrMrLordX - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Tom got the same overclock Anand did. Anand ran a comprehensive suite of stability tests which forced him to step the overclock back to 2.6ghz for stability. Tom ran 3dMark06 once and did not/could not/was not allowed to test for stability.This is what happens when you drink the Kool-Aid. And yes, I'm looking at you Tom's Hardware.
calyth - Tuesday, November 20, 2007 - link
"This is what happens when you drink the Kool-Aid. And yes, I'm looking at you Tom's Hardware."Really. What's this Intel Resource Center doing on Anandtech?
IMO it's nothing terribly wrong that review sites getting a bit cosier with manufacturers. Stuff don't comes free. I still read Toms and I still read Anandtech, but I try to make up my own mind.
retrospooty - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
"This is what happens when you drink the Kool-Aid. And yes, I'm looking at you Tom's Hardware."Funny, a decade later and still nothings changed. I stopped soiling my browser with Tom's 10 years ago. LOL
flyck - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
the bug that forced amd to withdraw the higher clocked phenoms is present when the cpu is clocked higher. Thats why stability with the bug on higher clocked phenoms is low.3GHz with stock voltage is not that bad imo. if the bug is removed and it woul run stable i would say it is rather good.
Performance is indeed a bit low. Amd doesn't seem to get alot bennifit out the 128SSE2. wonder how that comes.
DrMrLordX - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
That's what the B3 stepping is supposedly intended to fix (among other things). Word is it will be available in January. More waiting!