AMD Phenom II X4 940 & 920: A True Return to Competition
by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 8, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
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.
AMD hasn’t done too well under SYSMark 2007, especially with Phenom - it was just never competitive. There were even murmurs of AMD complaining about its poor performance under SYSMark 2007 not too long ago. The complaints never went anywhere because Phenom II addressed the shortcomings. SYSMark 2007 favors larger caches and the original Phenom left its cores cache-starved. With 1.5MB of L3 cache per core, Phenom II now offers the same performance as its closest cost competitors under SYSMark 2007.
The Phenom II X4 940 gets the exact same score as the Core 2 Quad Q9400. The Phenom II X4 920 equals the performance of the Q9300, which is actually a bit more expensive than AMD’s proposed price. If the two were competing against the Q9550 and Q9400, respectively, AMD would go back to trailing Penryn.
The older Phenom processors are mostly worthless here - Intel’s Core 2 Quad Q6600 outperforms the Phenom X4 9950 by 8%, and that’s with CnQ disabled. Turn on CnQ and the performance gap grows to a noticeable 25%. One of the biggest advantages of Phenom II is that you can have CnQ enabled without the painful performance impact.
It’s worth pointing out the sort of performance you can get out of a high frequency dual-core CPU here. The Core 2 Duo E8600 is a bit expensive for a dual-core, priced at $266, but it offers the same performance as the Core 2 Quad Q9650. The more affordable Core 2 Duo E8400 runs at 3.0GHz, priced at $166, and outperforms all sub-2.66GHz quad-core Core 2 chips. While a quad-core will last you longer, if you are a frequent upgrader it’s worth paying attention to the dual-core market. An E8400 today, followed by a mainstream Nehalem next year, could be your path to performance enlightenment.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
93 Comments
View All Comments
ViRGE - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - link
Those numbers are all correct, mate. I'm not sure why you'd be getting something different.Finally - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - link
Seriously guys, you should check out the new hard disk technology by Seagate. New density record, already available.kknd1967 - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - link
I thought Q9450 should be better with larger cache?Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - link
In some of the tests the two will swap places simply because they run at the same clock speed and the added cache doesn't always help performance. In those cases if the Q9450 is behind it's most likely due to normal variation between test runs.Take care,
Anand
Goty - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - link
If I didn't have a 5000+ BE sitting in a K9A2 in my rig right now I probably wouldn't consider this CPU, but seeing as I do, it looks like I've found my next upgrade.kmmatney - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - link
I was on a plane flying back from Taiwan (I work in the Fab industry) and I happened to sit next to an Intel employee who had traveled to Asia for the Core i7 launch. I asked him about the small L2 cache, and he explained that these run about 300 test applications, and chose the cache amounts based on a compromise between performance (and latency) and die size. We talked a bit and he asked me how I knew so much about computer hardware, and I mentioned I'm an avid Anandtech reader. He recognized the name, and mentioned that he saw Anand argue with one of his coworkers for quite some time about the L2 cache size!Zaitsev - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - link
That's a great story! I would love to see anand duking it out with some intel employees! LOLslayerized - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - link
AMD has indeed made some notable improvements with Phenom II and their 45nm. Reviews keep mentioning about how there is an upgrade option with Phenom II being AM2 compatible; however, what next (this is probably their last product with AM2 compatibility)? Shouldn't the reviews consider the upgrade options for Core i7/X58 with Westmere in a couple of years too? For someone who is considering a fresh build, I think that is something that should be analyzed too imo. Great review otherwise as always; the playing field if not leveled is at least starting to look competitive in a few segments!!Griswold - Friday, January 9, 2009 - link
No. Facts and "might turn out that way in a few years" arent the same thing.san1s - Thursday, January 8, 2009 - link
still slower than core 2?