The Phenom II X4 810 & X3 720: AMD Gets DDR3 But Doesn't Need It
by Anand Lal Shimpi on February 9, 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.
While our Photoshop CS4 benchmark clearly prefers Intel's CPUs, the results aren't so clean cut. The entire Phenom II 800 and 900 lineup falls short of their competitors, but the Phenom II X3 720 can equal its rival: the Core 2 Duo E7500. It's slower than the more expensive E8400, but it's at least competitive.
This is where AMD has some potential to do well. As a result of its larger die, the 720 has one more core than Intel's svelte Core 2 Duos. In well threaded applications, the X3 could come out ahead.
DivX 8.5.3 with Xmpeg 5.0.3
Our DivX test is the same DivX / XMpeg 5.03 test we've run for the past few years now, the 1080p source file is encoded using the unconstrained DivX profile, quality/performance is set balanced at 5 and enhanced multithreading is enabled:
Both the Phenom II 900 and 800 series parts are competitive here. The Phenom II X3 720 actually beats out both competitors here, the E7500 and E8400 are close but no faster than the 720. Here's a benefit of that extra core at work.
x264 HD Video Encoding Performance
Graysky's x264 HD test uses the publicly available x264 codec (open source alternative to H.264) to encode a 4Mbps 720p MPEG-2 source. The focus here is on quality rather than speed, thus the benchmark uses a 2-pass encode and reports the average frame rate in each pass.
The first pass of the x264 benchmark is actually an analysis pass, the real encoding is done in the second pass. There are apparently quite a few unaligned cache accesses in this test which severely penalize the Core 2 processors; Core i7 is unaffected. Because of the unaligned cache access performance penalty, AMD owns the price/performance comparison here.
The actual encode workload is much more competitive. The Phenom II 800 and 900 series chips cluster around each other, remaining competitive but not really any faster than the equivalently priced Core 2 Quads. The Phenom II X3 720 continues to be faster than its competitor thanks to its core count advantage.
Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 Advanced Profile
In order to be codec agnostic we've got a Windows Media Encoder benchmark looking at the same sort of thing we've been doing in the DivX and x264 tests, but using WME instead.
Here we've got, once again, a competitive AMD but there's something very interesting going on with the triple core 720. WME9 doesn't make use of the third core as it is hard coded to use powers of 2 for the number of processor cores. There are some applications that will exhibit this sort of behavior, although in our testing the numbers are limited. With its third core out of the picture, the 720 is slower than Intel's Core 2 Duo E7500.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
77 Comments
View All Comments
hyc - Monday, February 9, 2009 - link
I was looking for the test that justified the "DDR3 not worth it" conclusion, but didn't see it.Where did you show the results of testing the X4 910 against the X4 940, with CPU and NB clocks set identically? If you didn't test this, then how can you make any conclusion about DDR2 vs DDR3 performance on Phenom II? If I missed it, sorry for being blind.
7Enigma - Monday, February 9, 2009 - link
I'm hoping since this just went up they forgot to include a couple pages. If not, hopefully they are retesting ASAP to include data....jchan2 - Monday, February 9, 2009 - link
i'm intersted in seeing the benchmarks myself.if it's true that DDR2 vs DDR3 doesn't make much difference in performance, then what's the purpose of getting DD3?
TheFace - Monday, February 9, 2009 - link
So that when the prices DO drop later this year, they aren't caught with their pants down playing catch up on the memory compatibility front. Also, when Joe Schmoe runs to Worst Buy to replace the computer that he got 5 years ago, with a new $600 model, he can look on the box and see DDR3 which MUST be faster than DDR2.It's a selling point. In retail, ANYTHING is a selling point as long as there is a disparity in knowledge held by the parties involved.
Targon - Monday, February 9, 2009 - link
Compatibility. When Intel made the jump to DDR2, AMD waited until the prices came down on the memory. If there is no performance advantage, then the only reason to change memory types is for price reasons.For large OEMs like Dell, HP, and Gateway, it is more cost effective if all systems use the same type of memory. At this point though, since there is a price premium for DDR3 memory, just having DDR3 support on the CPU would not make an OEM add more AMD based machines to their list of systems sold.
Gary Key - Monday, February 9, 2009 - link
We are still working on the comparison, but all of the initial numbers pointed to a tie between DDR3 and DDR2 in our results so far. The BIOS releases for the AM3 boards are just now coming up to speed. I had planned on significantly more information in the overclocking section but we just received a new BIOS for the 790FX boards that allow DDR3 clocking above 1600 or so.However, at like core clock speeds, DDR2-1175 C5 is just as fast as DDR3-1600 C7 in most of the benchmarks at this point. We are running tests now at the lower end of the spectrum to show 800/1066 DDR2 vs 1066/1333 DDR3. Those results still show little if any differences.
thepiratebay - Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - link
Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem 2.66GHzin ur upper test as u can seee 2.8?????
Enoc - Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - link
DDR3 is not the problem, Deneb is bottlenecked on NB-L3 side... what it needs is NB at 2,800mhz+ with DDR3 1,600mhz+ for a good scaling...Denithor - Monday, February 9, 2009 - link
"We are still working on the comparison"SO - why would you even reference DDR3 as being useless in your title if you aren't going to provide evidence to back up this comment?
Gary Key - Monday, February 9, 2009 - link
We are still working on it but all results so far point to that being the case right now. It is difficult to have meaningful results ready when receiving BIOS releases that actually stabilize a board just a few hours before going to print. ;)