AMD's Phenom X4 9950, 9350e and 9150e: Lower Prices, Voltage Tricks and Strange Behavior
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Gary Key on July 1, 2008 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
3D Rendering Performance
3dsmax r9
Our benchmark, as always, is the SPECapc 3dsmax 8 test but for the purpose of this article we only run the CPU rendering tests and not the GPU tests.
The results are reported as render times in seconds and the final CPU composite score is a weighted geometric mean of all of the test scores.
Overall performance in our 3dsmax test is quite favorable to AMD (mostly because of one very unique test, which we talk about below). The individual scores however show a very competitive showing by AMD, at least at these price points.
Although hot on its heels, the Phenom X3 8650 is unable to outperform the E7200 here. The 9950 BE manages to pull slightly ahead of the Q9300 and the E8400 and 9550 are basically tied.
This is the test that actually screws the whole thing for Intel. It turns out that CBALLS2 calls a function in the Microsoft C Runtime Library (msvcrt.dll) that, when combined with Vista SP1, can magnify the Core architecture's performance penalty when accessing data that is not aligned with cache line boundaries. This has been fixed in Nehalem, but until then this one 3dsmax test will suffer - giving AMD the advantage here, and making it far more competitive in the 3dsmax overall score.
Intel inches ahead in the performance-per-dollar race here at all of the price points.
Cinebench R10
A benchmarking favorite, Cinebench R10 is designed to give us an indication of performance in the Cinema 4D rendering application.
Single core performance here is dismal for AMD, luckily you get more cores for the same money from AMD and thus once we look at multithreaded performance things change a bit:
The 9950 is now nearly as fast as a Q6600, although Intel maintains the performance-per-dollar lead here. The 9550 manages to outperform the Core 2 Duo E8400 at the same price, simply due to the fact that it has more cores.
POV-Ray 3.7 Beta 24
POV-Ray is a popular raytracer, also available with a built in benchmark. We used the 3.7 beta which has SMP support and ran the built in multithreaded benchmark.
We see a similar breakdown in POV-Ray, AMD is competitive but it can't take any significant lead - cost is the only competitive leg it has to stand on here; thankfully it is one that supports Phenom's weight.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
View All Comments
Gikaseixas - Wednesday, July 2, 2008 - link
Other sites tested it already and could hit 3.2 - 3.6 speeds. Hopefully Anandtech will be able to overclock a Phenom to it's limits this time around.Googer - Wednesday, July 2, 2008 - link
Missing from the benchmarks is the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield 2.83GHz 12MB. How would this chip stack up against all others tested?http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
RamarC - Wednesday, July 2, 2008 - link
the q9550 isn't in the same price range as the other processors so that's why it wasn't included. as for performance, either subtract or add 10% to the q9450's figures.DanD85 - Wednesday, July 2, 2008 - link
Are you absolutely sure about that? As hothardware thinks differently:"By altering its multiplier and increasing the CPU voltage to 1.45v, we were able to take our Phenom X4 9950 to an respectable 3.1GHz using nothing but a stock AMD PIB cooler. Higher frequencies were possible, but we couldn't keep the system 100% stable, so we backed things down to 3.1GHz. While running at that speed, we re-ran some tests and also monitored core temperatures and found that the chip never broke the 60ºC mark, and hovered around 58ºC under load - at least according to AMD's Overdrive software. That is one heck of an overclock and relatively cool temperatures for a Phenom in our opinion. If the majority of chips have the same amount of headroom as ours, we suspect the 9950 Black Edition will be appealing to AMD CPU enthusiasts looking for the best the company has to offer."
http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/AMD_Phenom_X4_...">http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/AMD...nom_X4_9...
KaarlisK - Wednesday, July 2, 2008 - link
Maybe by setting affinity for Photoshop's threads to a certain core, it would be possible to verify whether Vista's thread management is part of the cause?Zoomer - Wednesday, July 2, 2008 - link
I know its a novel concept, but what about running some benches in XP to see if it's another Vista issue?Rhoxed - Wednesday, July 2, 2008 - link
Increasing the NB core (IMC) clock (in Phenom it runs async from the Core Speed unlike Athlon which is Sync) drops latencies (especially L3) and increases memory performance/throughput, which in turn improves system performance. The Phenom starts to come to life when you hit a 2.6GHz core speed with a NB core clock at 2200MHz+. Depending on the application and CPU, increasing NB core speeds (getting up to 2200MHz+) can result in performance differences from 3%~12% in most cases.Upping my NB/HT to 2400MHz over the stock 2000 at the same clockspeed (2800) i net a 15%~ increase (on a 9850BE)
RamarC - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link
i'm a developer and want to upgrade my win2k3/ss2k5 server to a quad core. since it currently has a 3.4ghz p4d, a phenom 9x50 would be a big step-up (even though i don't have any performance issues). but the p4d has been very reliable and i don't want to have to deal with flaky hardware issues when i'm pushing code out the door. should i just bite the bullet and shell out the extra cash for a p45+q9450?Calin - Wednesday, July 2, 2008 - link
I have an AMD based PC at home, and I look forward to another AMD-based pc (780G and Phenom X3 or X4).These being said, I think for a server you really really should go for an Intel configuration. Also, at 3.4 GHz a P4D probably is one hell of a power draw.
Compared to your current server, and based on what I think you need, I don't think a quad core would help you - a dual core would probably be enough, and Intel has those aplenty.
Zoomer - Wednesday, July 2, 2008 - link
From the article, it seems like sticking to the cheaper, sub 100W TDP cpus and not overclocking is the way to go.