AMD Phenom II X4 980 Black Edition Review
by Anand Lal Shimpi on May 2, 2011 10:42 PM ESTGeneral Performance: SYSMark 2007
Our journey starts with SYSMark 2007, the only all-encompassing performance suite in our review today. The idea here is simple: one benchmark to indicate the overall performance of your machine. SYSMark 2007 ends up being more of a dual-core benchmark as the applications/workload show minimal use of more than two threads.
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
78 Comments
View All Comments
JKflipflop98 - Tuesday, May 3, 2011 - link
ARM gets CRUSHED on the desktop by x86.JimmiG - Tuesday, May 3, 2011 - link
The Q6600 didn't come at 3.7 GHz or overclock to 4.2 with stock cooling. Performance clock for clock doesn't really mean anything.But I'm not disagreeing that the Phenom II is unimpressive. The Phenom II is essentially the same as the Phenom released in 2007, but with more L3 cache. The Phenom itself wasn't all that different from the K8 from 2003, which in itself was just an evolution of the original Athlon.
You could trace current Intel CPUs back to the Pentium Pro in the same way, but they have gone through many more, radical changes over the years. Hopefully those radical changes will come to AMD's CPU architecture with the release of BD.
jabber - Tuesday, May 3, 2011 - link
Look at it another way and you could say AMD have done an amazing job keeping whats essentialy an 8 year old design in the running.When you look at it that way Intel's latest gen chips giving you an extra 10fps isnt that amazing.
BSMonitor - Tuesday, May 3, 2011 - link
"When you look at it that way Intel's latest gen chips giving you an extra 10fps isnt that amazing."FPS are the best case scenario for older/weaker processors as they are ultimately limited by GPU performance....
"Look at it another way and you could say AMD have done an amazing job keeping whats essentialy an 8 year old design in the running."
The Core i series can be trace it's origins to the original Core Duo processors that debuted Apple's transition to x86 (5 Years ago) Intel has had 4 extremely impressive architecture changes since, each improving performance from ~20% to ~100% in some cases... AMD has executed 2. The first Phenom was a HUGE disappointment and couldn't compete with Core 2 Duo's let alone Core 2 Quads.. Phenom II, now gaining traction, is still barely competing against those same Core 2 Quads..
Your same ~10fps difference could be said of my old Core 2 E6600 against your Phenom II x6 in GPU limited scenarios...
AMD's entire success in surpassing Intel was placing the MCU on the CPU die. With that move, they blew their load. Thanks to the power hungry beast that was the netburst processors, Intel worked on improving caching algorithms, multi-threading, parallel processing, etc The end result is Intel with an extremely efficient CPU(born from it's mistakes) and an integrated MCU, AMD is left with just a so-so CPU and an integrated MCU.
Action_Parsnip - Tuesday, May 3, 2011 - link
"FPS are the best case scenario for older/weaker processors as they are ultimately limited by GPU performance...."This sentence has no meaning.
"Intel has had 4 extremely impressive architecture changes since"
I count 3 changes. core 2 -> nehalem wasn't #extremely# impressive, just impressive.
"AMD's entire success in surpassing Intel was placing the MCU on the CPU die."
Your a fool and do not know what your talking about.
MilwaukeeMike - Tuesday, May 3, 2011 - link
"Your a fool and do not know what your talking about. "It's you're btw. "Better to remain silent and let others think you're a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt" ;)
SlyNine1 - Tuesday, May 3, 2011 - link
""FPS are the best case scenario for older/weaker processors as they are ultimately limited by GPU performance...."This sentence has no meaning."
Made perfect sense to me. The rendering of FPS ( Frames per Second) is a best case senario for older/weaker processors as the bottleneck is elsewhere..
I don't understand how that doesn't make sense, it makes perfect sense.
And getting on someone for saying extremely impressive instead of just impressive, Facepalm!!
Action_Parsnip - Tuesday, May 3, 2011 - link
""FPS are the best case scenario for older/weaker processors as they are ultimately limited by GPU performance...."so is he saying the game tests in this review do not show the same trends as the other tests? That is what he is saying in effect. They look perfectly in line with expectations afaik. The sentence on it's own does mean very little if anything. He is either saying this review is doing something wrong or that gaming tests are of little/no worth.
"nd getting on someone for saying extremely impressive instead of just impressive, Facepalm!!"
ZOMGWTFBBQ111!!!!!!! LOL!!!11
Being a native english speaker, I know there is a difference between impressive and extremely impressive.
Skipping a stone on a lake 20 times is impressive. Walking on the water there is extremely impressive.
extide - Wednesday, May 4, 2011 - link
"Thanks to the power hungry beast that was the netburst processors, Intel worked on improving caching algorithms, multi-threading, parallel processing, etc The end result is Intel with an extremely efficient CPU(born from it's mistakes) and an integrated MCU, AMD is left with just a so-so CPU and an integrated MCU. "I have said this exact same thing many times before. At this point in time making the P4 helped Intel because they had to optimize the heck out of EVERYTHING in it to even be remotely competitive, and well, now all that work is done.
Ushio01 - Tuesday, May 3, 2011 - link
Actually with core/thread/clock being equal 65nm Core2 will beat Phenom II in nearly all benchmarks 45nm Core2 crushes it.