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
ChronoReverse - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Yeah, I was in a similar position a couple months back too but I could tell from the winds that the Phenom wasn't going to be that much better than the Core2 if at all so I sprung for the Q6600. Looks like (unfortunately) my estimation was quite correct =/stmok - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
...And I guess it looks like the wait wasn't worth it.This article confirms to me I should be leaning towards the Intel C2Q Q9450.
rhatsaruck - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
On page 4 titled "Socket-AM2+, Not So Positive?" Anand writes:Currently, the L3 cache/NB on these chips runs at a fixed frequency that's actually lower than the rest of the CPU frequency: 2.0GHz. We tested Phenoms running from 2.2GHz all the way up to 2.6GHz, and in all cases the L3 cache and North Bridge ran at 2.0GHz.
What's the performance impact of this limitation? I don't know how to quantify it. It seems like it might have a material effect on performance. Perhaps Anand can re-run his benchmarks at 1.8 and 2.0 GHz to get a sense of the performance boost when this limitation doesn't exist. From this we might be able to determine how much this shortcoming effects performance at speeds greater than 2.0 GHz.
Iketh - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
My Athlon 4200+ (2.2ghz) overclocks to 2.7ghz stable. Anything passed that and the second core skyrockets too high in temp and fails prime95 torture tests, while the first core has yet to fail ANY tests and runs up to 10 degrees C cooler.My point is the individual core overclocking is the only positive I see out of phenom. If i had this ability in my current athlon 4200+, it'd be clocked at 2.7 and 3.2+ easily.
Omega215D - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Ahh the old 9700 makes a comeback but too bad it falls a bit below expectations compared to the 9700 GPU by ATI who is now AMD.Maybe there's still time to make some tweaks to the processor?
GlassHouse69 - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
well.too bad for amd. they are toast it seems.
if it managed to be as cool and quiet, then I would have gone there on a quad because of price plus they have better and more consistently cheap + featured motherboards.
sux.
Well, on that thought, the new 790x motherboards with this actually might be low power when its all set up and done. fx or x I think does relatively the same thing. isnt the chipset supposed to be incredibly low wattage?
johnsonx - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Everyone knows AMD processors have always been, and will always be, far superior to the crap from Intel. Any article suggesting otherwise is clear evidence of pro-Intel bias, that indeed you all get weekly checks from Intel for the favorable press. The reality is that most Intel processors really don't even work at all; all the supposed PC's sold with Intel processors secretly use AMD processors instead, but again Intel pays off the companies to say they're Intel Inside. Intel has an endless supply of money because of their unfair business practices and the Magic Money Fairy.JumpingJack - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
This is outright kiddin' no one can be that stupid.Bonesdad - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
is that you, Cramitpal???ESD4300 - Monday, November 19, 2007 - link
Lol. What a fucking clueless, moronic fanboy