AMD's Phenom Unveiled: A Somber Farewell to K8
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 19, 2007 1:25 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
3D Rendering Performance
We'll start off our look at 3D rendering performance with the latest version of Cinebench, we ran the single and multi-threaded benchmarks and reported the scores below:
Single threaded performance goes to Intel, highlighting a theme you've probably already noticed thus far: Core 2 is far more efficient per clock than Phenom. AMD would need to be at around 2.8 - 2.9GHz to equal the performance of the Core 2 at 2.4GHz in this particular benchmark, even the Phenom 9900 can't cut it.
Looking at the multi-threaded results we see that AMD does gain some ground, but the standings remain unchanged: Intel can't be beat. We can actually answer one more question using the Cinebench results, and that is whether or not AMD's "true" quad-core (as in four cores on a single die) actually has a tangible performance advantage to Intel's quad-core (two dual-core die on a single package).
If we look at the improvement these chips get from running the multi-threaded benchmark, all of the Phenom cores go up in performance by around 3.79x, while all the Intel processors improve by around 3.53x. There's a definite scaling advantage (~7%), but it's not enough to overcome the inherent architectural advantages of the Core 2 processors.
3dsmax 9
As always we have our 3dsmax 9 test, using SPECapc's 3dsmax 8 benchmark files. The numbers we're reporting below are strictly the CPU rendering composite scores:
Here the Phenom 9900 is basically as fast as the Core 2 Q6600, unfortunately for AMD the 9900 doesn't launch until next year and it will launch at a price greater than the Q6600. AMD needs help cutting prices fast if it expects Phenom to remain competitive in the eyes of everyone who doesn't own a Socket-AM2 motherboard.
Lightwave 9.5
We see a similar story in our Lightwave benchmarks, the Phenom 9900 at best can equal the performance of the Q6600 but at worst it looks like AMD needs another 200 - 300MHz to catch up to Intel's cheapest quad-core:
POV-Ray
The POV-Ray benchmark is quite possibly the least kind to AMD out of the group:
Intel's Q6600 is 20% faster than AMD's fastest Phenom due out in Q1, it's 30% faster than Phenom at the same clock speed, and 35% faster at the most competitive price point.
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!