AMD's Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition
by Anand Lal Shimpi on April 23, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
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:
Finally, after struggling far too long in our DivX encoding test AMD is now able to claim a spot in the top three. While it's still slower than the Core i7 920, the Phenom II X4 955 is faster than any Core 2 Quad on the list when it comes to DivX encoding.
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.
More important than DivX encoding performance is x264 encoding performance these days, and the Phenom II X4 955 does quite admirably here as well. The second pass is the more interesting one as that's the more strenuous pass:
The 955 is a hair faster than the Q9550 but unable to touch the Core i7 920.
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.
Once again, short of the i7, the Phenom II X4 955 is the fastest quad-core here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
65 Comments
View All Comments
dragonsphere - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link
I read articles like this all the time for multiple websites. I am a professional application performance tester and I can tell you that most of these articles are junk just to stir up the masses. Most of their statistics are based on averages. This means that 51% of the time they are wrong. Have you noticed that none of them show confidence tests to prove that their data is accurate? Also they don't use 90th percentiles. I think this is due to the lack of the tools that they are using to generate these sub-standard statistics. Until the software they are using is more precise I would consider these tests to be junk science.cal954 - Saturday, May 2, 2009 - link
Thanks for all the information. I used this model to build my first computer, although no matter what I try to do, my CPU-Z never shows me the multiplier being anything but 4.0 and I can't get my core speed above 800 even w/ CnQ disabled.Hamlet2000 - Saturday, May 9, 2009 - link
You need to update your bios on your motherboard. I had the exact same thing with my new Phenom II 955 build on a Gigabyte board. Once you update, go into your bios and set the clock at 200 x 16. You'll notice the speed difference right away - it's a smoking fast CPU!Edgemeal - Monday, April 27, 2009 - link
Geez, some of you people make it sound like AMD has to have the fastest CPU in the market or they just aren't any good or something!AMD knows what their chip/PC parts are worth in the market place and their price/performance fits in very nicely. I applaud AMD, without them you'd be reading about the new $900 2GHz P4s right about now LOL!
swapnadip - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link
Either AnandTech is Intel fan or Intel pays them hefty Loyalty.If not, then why every other reviewieng site shows AMD PHENOM 2 X4 955 BE defeating Core i7 940 on evey computing prospects.
On some instances it has bashed on Core i7 965 extreme.
This is pretty much biased and helping INTEL play their MONOPOLOY in this sector. In today's market, no two rivals can have their top of line product bearing differences of Day and Night like shown in this review.
Thanks
swapnadip - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link
Either AnandTech is Intel fan or Intel pays them hefty Loyalty.If not, then why every other reviewieng site shows AMD PHENOM 2 X4 955 BE defeating Core i7 940 on evey computing prospects.
On some instances it has bashed on Core i7 965 extreme.
This is pretty much biased and helping INTEL play their MONOPOLOY in this sector. In today's market, no two rivals can have their top of line product bearing differences of Day and Night like shown in this review.
Thanks
swapnadip - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link
Either AnandTech is Intel fan or Intel pays them hefty Loyalty.If not, then why every other reviewieng site shows AMD PHENOM 2 X4 955 BE defeating Core i7 940 on evey computing prospects.
On some instances it has bashed on Core i7 965 extreme.
This is pretty much biased and helping INTEL play their MONOPOLOY in this sector. In today's market, no two rivals can have their top of line product bearing differences of Day and Night like shown in this review.
Thanks
iFX - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link
PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+
PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+
PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+
PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+
PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+
PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+
----
Why is it every AMD article on this site has errors?
wowo - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link
how x264?x264 benchmark 2.0 is very old .it is 819,but new x264 is 1139.intel is better for 1139 a lot.
please test wirh new x264.
ultrageek1111 - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link
you know what they say about black processors...