The AMD Phenom family has a very interesting history, and can trace its lineage back to the infamous TLB-bug and a long game of catch-up with powerhouse Intel. Each new Phenom revision brought AMD closer to the Core 2, and the latest Phenom II X4 introduction finally achieved relative parity with the Core 2 Quad. But those were hybrid AM2+ models, and with their latest Phenom revamp, AMD has formally introduced Socket AM3, further segmenting the Phenom II X4 line and taking the bold move of giving triple-core overclocking to the entry-level masses.
The new AM3 processors remain mostly unchanged from the first-generation of Phenom II models, but there are some important differences. These CPUs are still built on a 45nm SOI process and are native multi-core with a shared L3 cache, but many of the specifications of the AM2+ Phenom II X4 have changed. For starters, the Phenom II AM3 processor die sports a dual-mode memory controller that can use either DDR2 or DDR3, depending on the platform. The DDR2 portion is consistent with AM2+ specifications, and new DDR3 memory controller supports dual channel memory, or separate 64-bit channels, with DDR3-1333 being the standard clock speed.
With the Phenom II X4 800 series, AMD has segmented their quad core line into two specific L3 cache sizes. While the L1 and L2 cache remain unchanged at 64K + 64K of L1 instruction/data cache and 512KB of L2 cache per CPU core, the L3 cache has decreased. The Phenom II X4 900 processors include a full 6MB of L3 cache, while the X4 800 models have dropped to 4MB of L3 cache. Strangely, the Phenom II X3 700 series may drop a core's worth of L1 and L2 cache, but these still maintain a full 6MB of L3 cache. The first-generation Phenom II models ran at a 1.8 GHz HyperTransport clock speed, but this has been upgraded to a full 2.0 GHz for all Phenom II AM3 models.
Compatibility is also an interesting question when it comes to Socket AM3. This current wave of Socket AM3 processors will work on existing Socket AM2+ motherboards, but due to pinouts and the lack of a dual-mode DDR3 memory controller, AM2/AM2+ processors will not be compatible with AM3 motherboards. That means current AM2+ motherboard owners will be able to upgrade to AM3 processors, and keep their DDR2 memory intact, while AM3 platform buyers will be able to utilize faster DDR3 memory.
The Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition is the most surprising processor release from AMD today, as not only is this a low-priced triple-core CPU, but it's a fully unlocked Black Edition that is primed for the hardcore overclocker. Sure, AMD did this previously with the Phenom X3 8750 BE, but now we're talking a highly overclockable Phenom II core. The specifications also include a few surprises, and while the Phenom II X3 720 BE and its three cores include only 1.5MB of L2 cache, it still receives the full Phenom II treatment of a 6MB L3 cache.
The Phenom II X3 720 BE is also clocked at 2.8 GHz, tying with the Phenom II X4 920 for the second-fastest processor in the line, while surpassing it with a full 2.0 GHz HyperTransport speed. Power specifications have also dropped, with a 0.850-1.425V voltage range and a 95W TDP. This TDP rating compares to the 125W of both the Phenom II X4 920 and 940.
While the newest triple-core Phenom II was a bit of a revelation, the Phenom II X4 810 is more of a standard release. This is not a fancy Black Edition model, and instead it has a locked multiplier and as such, will not attract the hardware enthusiasts. This quad core model includes the standard 2MB (4 x 512K) of L2 cache, but AMD has dropped the L3 cache from 6MB on the Phenom II X4 900 models to only 4MB for the X4 800 series.
Its 2.6 GHz clock speed fits the AMD model number scheme, and like all AM3 models, the Phenom II X4 810 has a full 2.0 GHz HyperTransport link. It shares the same basic power specifications as the X3 720, with a slightly higher 0.875-1.425V voltage range and the same 95W TDP. This drop in TDP was not that surprising for a triple-core processor, but lowering all of today's Phenom II X4 models to 95W is a nice move.
AMD is also releasing addition Phenom II models, including the Phenom X3 710 (2.6 GHz, 6MB), X4 805 (2.5 GHz, 4MB) and X4 910 (2.6 GHz, 6MB), with the Phenom X4 805 and 910 being OEM tray only parts.
The Phenom II X3 720 and X4 810 are mainstream performance CPUs, so we're taking these up against similar AMD and Intel processors. Due to the mainstream pricing, we're leaving out the absolute top-end models, and have pitted these latest Phenom II processors against the Core 2 Duo E7300 (2.66 GHz), the Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.4 GHz), Q9400 (2.66 GHz, 6MB) and Q9450 (2.66 GHz, 12MB), and Core i7-920 (2.66 GHz). The AMD competition includes the Phenom X4 9950 (2.6 GHz) and Phenom II X4 920 (2.8 GHz) and X4 940 (3.0 GHz) models.
These processors are matched with corresponding platforms and peripherals, while ensuring consistency with the overall reference system mix. The Phenom II X3 and X4 processors use an AMD 790GX motherboard, while the Core 2 models get an Intel X48, the Phenom X4 is on a 790FX, and the Core i7 is powered by an Intel X58 board. The base memory capacity is set at 1GB modules, and the speed and type of memory is tailored to the mainstream market as well. The 790GX/FX platforms use 2x1GB of DDR2-800 (CL4), which we find yields slightly higher benchmark results compared to CL5 DDR2-1066. The Intel X58 sports 3x1GB DDR3-1066 (CL7), while the X48 has 2x1GB of DDR3-1066 or -1333 (CL9), depending on the CPU bus speed (FSB 1066 vs. 1333).
The default hard disk configuration is comprised of a Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 1TB SATA 3.0 Gb/s drive, which provides top-end disk performance and ensures consistent benchmarking. The video component is also high-performance, and we have used a dual-GPU PNY GeForce 9800 GX2 1GB, which will provide more than enough GPU power for our gaming tests. We have also moved to Windows Vista Ultimate for our processor benchmarking, with recent updates applied.
The benchmark list includes a wide range of system, CPU, memory, and gaming tests. These include PCMark05, PCMark Vantage, SiSoft SANDRA 2009, WinRAR, and CINEBENCH 9.5/10, along with TMPGEnc 4.0 Xpress for MPEG-2, DivX, WMV and HDV encoding. We also utilize popular 3D game tests like ET: Quake Wars, Unreal Tournament 3, World in Conflict, 3DMark Vantage, 3DMark06, and Crysis. Our default game benchmark setting is 1024x768, which is well suited for CPU comparisons but still realistic as an actual game play resolution.
* Please note that unless otherwise stated, such as the media encoding times, all performance graph results equate to the standard "higher is better" routine.
PCMark05 Professional is part of the PCMark system benchmarking series from FutureMark, and was revamped to highlight current hardware and features additional multithreaded and multi-tasking performance tests. There is the usual selection of individual System, CPU, Memory, Graphics, and Hard Drive benchmark suites, and these continue to bridge the gap between synthetic and application-based benchmarks. For our purposes, the System, CPU and Memory areas will be where we concentrate our benchmarking efforts.
The PCMark05 System benchmark suite includes a wide range of tests, from Windows XP hard drive startup to video and audio encoding, and features a selection of standard desktop routines like text edit, virus scanning, and image decompression. Three of the benchmark scenarios are multithreaded, with the first two including two simultaneous tests, and the final one utilizing four program tests running simultaneously. For this test, the latest 1.2 patch + hotfix have been applied.
The latest Phenom II X3 and X4 models acquit themselves well in this benchmark, with the X3 720 easily outpacing the Core 2 Duo E7300, while the X4 810 competes very well against both the Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Q9450.
The PCMark05 CPU benchmark does have some multi-threaded tests, and even though it is clocked lower, the Phenom II X4 810 still posts a higher score than the X3 720. In terms of Intel comparisons, the Phenom II X4 810 manages to squeeze by the Core 2 Quad Q6600, but that's as far up the chart as it goes.
The PCMark05 Memory benchmark testing doesn't show the newest Phenom II X3 and X4 models taking over the chart, and these are pretty well middle of the road in terms of performance scores.
PCMark Vantage differs greatly from previous PCMark suites in that it does not isolate system components in the same way, and while supplying a PCMark System ranking, it will not specifically identify CPU performance. PCMark Vantage is still an important test, and using the Whitepaper as a guide, we have chosen the PCMark, Memories, Gaming, and Productivity suites. For all tests, we have used PCMark Vantage 1.0 with the hotfix applied.
The first test is the overall PCMark score, which combines several tests from the other suites, and incorporates these into a system-level performance ranking. The Phenom II X3 720 and X4 810 fall back of the higher-speed Phenom and Phenom II models, and both processors sit just back of the 2.4 GHz Core 2 Quad Q6600. It is clear that clock speed hampers overall PCMark Vantage scores, as the 3.0 GHz Phenom II X4 940 takes a good run at the Core i7-920.
The Memories, or digital imaging, section of PCMark Vantage has the greatest impact on the memory-platform subsystem, and this time we see the quad core Phenom II X4 810 moving ahead of both the Phenom II X3 720 and Phenom X4 9950.
The results in the Vantage Gaming suite are a bit better, and now the latest Phenom II models are well ahead of the Core 2 Quad Q6600 and pushing even the Core 2 Quad Q9400.
The Productivity suite shows the Phenom II X3 and X4 processors outperforming the Intel competition, and this benchmark seems to appreciate the full 2.0 GHz HT speeds, as the two new models perform a bit higher than a same-speed AM2+ Phenom II.
SiSoft SANDRA 2009 is a very popular system benchmark, and each revision sticks to its roots and supplies a wide range of individual benchmarks and system utilities. These tests include processor, system, network, and hard drive benchmarks, along with many other performance metrics. The memory bandwidth test is the most popular section of the SiSoft SANDRA benchmark suite, and it highlights the potential performance levels of the CPU-memory subsystem. As the Integer and FPU memory bandwidth scores are quite similar, we are only including the first one in our benchmark testing.
The memory bandwidth test in SANDRA 2009 is the first entirely memory-specific benchmark so far, and it will be interesting to see how the revamped AM3 Phenom II core responds. So far it looks favorable, as the Phenom II X4 810 outperforms the X4 940, and the Phenom II X3 720 posts the highest non-Core i7 score in the entire chart.
The SiSoft SANDRA 2009 Cache & Memory benchmark goes well beyond memory performance, and measures the bandwidth of the combined processor cache and memory subsystem. This test can show off the architectural advantages of each processor, as well as the benefits of larger and faster L1/L2 data caches, and help give us an overall view of how the processor and memory match up in high-speed data transfers.
This test highlights one of the limitations of the smaller L3 cache size in the Phenom II X4 810, as it falls back of the Phenom II X4 920. The triple-core Phenom II X3 720 finds itself at the bottom of the chart, ahead of only the Core 2 Duo E7300.
SiSoft SANDRA 2009 incorporates a multi-core benchmark that tests the inter-core bandwidth, processor affinity and speed of today's top-end CPUs. This measures the efficiency of the inter-connect bandwidth, and determines overall bandwidth available between processors.
Through multiple iterations of the SiSoft SANDRA benchmark, AMD Phenom-based processors have had a serious problem with this test, and although the results have jumped slightly for the Phenom II X4 810, the Intel processors remain well ahead.
The Everest Ultimate Edition benchmark suite is similar to SiSoft SANDRA, as it provides both system diagnostic and informational programs, while also incorporating various memory and CPU benchmarks. As these utilize a different process than SANDRA, this could give us another peek at the true memory performance of these new processors. We have tested each of the CPUs and platforms under the Everest Memory Read, Write, Copy and Latency benchmarks.
First up is the Memory Read benchmark, which shows the entire Phenom II class with very similar benchmark scores, all in the 7500-8000 range. This places the new Phenom II X3 720 and X4 810 on par with the mainstream Core 2 Quad Q9400 and Q9450 processors, while the Core i7-920 demonstrates once again that it's on a whole different performance plane.
The Everest Memory Write scores follow closely to the previous benchmarking, but within the same processor line, these relate more to clock speed than anything else. The AM3 core seems to have a small advantage here over the first-generation Phenom II X4 models.
The Memory Copy benchmarking shows the various Phenom II X3 and X4 models finishing ahead of the Core 2 Duo and Quad processors, while the Core i7-920 leaves them all in the dust.
The Memory Latency results are very consistent for all Phenom and Phenom II models, but the FSB speed of the Intel CPUs has a huge impact, with the FSB1333 models easily outpacing their FSB1066 counterparts.
Since we're now firmly in a multi-core world, in-depth evaluation of multi-threaded processor performance is required, but without the limitations of single-threaded applications or component-specific benchmarks. We offer up three different multi-threaded benchmarks: CINEBENCH 9.5, CINEBENCH 10 and WinRAR.
CINEBENCH is a performance suite, which utilizes CINEMA 4D for both CPU and video-based testing. We use the multi-threaded CPU benchmark, which processes a large, detailed image file on-screen, and displays the test results. Both CINEBENCH 9.5 and 10 dynamically shift image processing on the fly. If one core is finished its job, the program automatically segments the remainder of the image, thereby speeding up processing times considerably. The main difference between the two is the image workload, with CINEBENCH 9.5 offering a more mainstream test, while CINEBENCH 10 gives the CPU a much tougher workout.
Our CINEBENCH 9.5 benchmark testing shows the Phenom II X3 and X4 processors giving the Intel Core 2 Duo/Quad models a good run for the money. The Phenom II X3 720 makes short work of the Core 2 Duo E7300, while the Phenom II X4 810 takes a run at the Core 2 Quad Q9400. Even the powerful Core i7-920 is within reach, not finishing that far ahead of the Phenom II X4 940.
The more demanding CINEBENCH 10 benchmarking pushes the advantage in Intel's favor, and now we see the Core 2 Quad processors with a slight advantage over the corresponding Phenom II model.
WinRAR is one of the most popular compression programs, and it even includes an internal benchmark program that measures the performance of the RAR compression and decompression algorithm using a demanding worst-case data set. This multi-threaded test offers a data throughput rating, and while it does not relate specifically to cache or memory transfers, we have found that the overall throughput numbers do adhere closely to the overall architecture. A faster clock speed certainly helps, but the score also ties in closely with memory, cache and CPU performance.
WinRAR is another multi-threaded benchmark, and it has displayed excellent results for the Phenom II line. It's a repeat performance this time out, as the Phenom II X4 810 outperforms the powerful Core 2 Quad Q9450.
For our media encoding tests we use TMPGEnc 4.0 Xpress and a selection of high-end video files. TMPGEnc 4.0 Xpress not only provides real-world video encoding performance results, but also includes a host of specialized CPU support options. The program is fully multi-threaded, outlining the number of physical and logical cores, and supports virtually all CPU multimedia features such as MMX/MMX-2, SSE/SSE2/SSE3, 3D Now!/Enhanced 3D Now!, along with a Core 2 mode.
In our first test, our 8-minute AVI file is encoded at 720x480 MPEG-2 DVD quality video using TMPGEnc 4.0 and the encoding time is recorded. The results are expressed in the form of time elapsed (minutes: seconds) and unlike many of our other benchmarks, a smaller bar denotes less time taken, and therefore better encoding performance.
Although MPEG2 DVD encoding is not the most difficult video encoding benchmark, it is a very popular test, and one that the Phenom II seems adept at. One interesting facet of this chart is that the triple-core Phenom II X3 720 outpaces the Phenom II X4 810, proving that in some cases the higher clock speed can make up for the lower number of cores.
For the next test, we've taken the same video file, and encoded it to DivX (672x352) using TMPGEnc 4. This is about on par with the previous DVD authoring test, but uses a different codec. The performance results are expressed in the form of time elapsed (minutes: seconds) and as with the MPEG-2 results, a smaller bar denotes less time taken, and therefore higher performance.
The DivX encoding test results are also very impressive, and the Phenom II X4 810 almost matched the Core 2 Quad, while the Phenom II X3 720 makes mincemeat out of the Core 2 Duo E7300. As in all our tests, the gaps may seem small, but try extrapolating the 8-minute video to a full 2-hour file.
Now we're switching to Windows Media Video (WMV), and encoding the same video file as a 672x352 .wmv file. As with the previous tests, these are time-based and a smaller bar denotes higher performance.
Under Vista, our Windows Media Video encoding testing offers enhanced multi-threading support, and shows off the advantages of a quad core design compared to the dual and triple-core models. Once again, the Phenom II X4 810 is pushing the Core 2 Quad Q9400, and while the Phenom II X3 720 is well back of the quads, it makes similar work of the dual core E7300.
Our final media-encoding test ups the ante considerably, this time forcing the processors to handle a high-definition video job, taking the end resolution to 1440x1080, with a 25000 Kb/s CBR. This test forces many systems to their literal knees, and is certainly not for the faint of heart.
The high-def video benchmarking can really separate the processor classes, and while most of the encoding times were expected, the Phenom II X3 720 has dropped back into contention with quad cores like the Phenom 9950.
3DMark06 is still one of the most popular gaming benchmarks but it's a bit old school in requiring DirectX 9.0 compatibility. The 3DMark06 program offers a high-end selection of both gaming and CPU tests, and is not only a prime way of determining potential DirectX 9 graphics card performance, but the individual CPU performance score also makes it a valuable tool in processor reviews and performance comparisons. This CPU benchmark is performed at the standard settings, with no anti-aliasing or filtering options enabled.
Standard game benchmarks usually don't show any real advantage with a dual or quad-core setup, primarily because most are not written with a multi-core platform in mind. One exception is the CPU test in 3DMark06 Pro, which does offer multi-threaded game benchmark support. This is clear from the chart, as the Core 2 Duo E7300 posts the lowest score, while the Phenom II X3 720 isn't far behind. The Phenom II X4 810 is in its standard position, easily ahead of the Core 2 Quad Q6600, but not quite able to catch up to the Q9400.
3DMark Vantage is the latest DirectX 10 revision of the Futuremark gaming-oriented benchmark, and follows closely with the overall design of past 3DMark products. In addition to the graphics and features testing, there are also two CPU-specific benchmarks, handling both AI and Physics. We'll be including both in this review, although the former seems to have far less reliance on the graphics card.
The first CPU test, concentrating on AI, shows the Phenom II models losing ground to the Intel competition, and while the Phenom II X4 810 has posted consistently higher scores than the Core 2 Quad Q6600, it's not true in this benchmark.
The second CPU test highlights the Physics game component, but it seems to be more GPU-limited than the previous one. Even so, the Phenom II models acquit themselves quite well, with the Phenom II X4 940 outperforming even the Core i7-920.
Crysis is a very demanding game from our friends at Crytek, and is very much like a significantly upgraded version of FarCry. The in-game visuals are incredible, and it even supports extra DirectX 10 goodies for those with top-end, enthusiast-level video cards. Since we're dealing with a processor, our Crysis test concentrates on the CPU benchmark, with all details set to Medium.
The Crysis results on the Phenom II processors are not very impressive, and this benchmark definitely has an Intel slant to it. The Phenom II X3 720 does quite well, as its 2.8 GHz clock speed relates more to pure gaming speed than the loss of a physical core.
Company of Heroes is another part of our CPU benchmark suite, and it offers a very demanding benchmark environment. CoH is a WW2 real-time strategy game, which again provides us with a nice change of pace from the usual FPS benchmark. We use the game's built-in performance test for all of our benchmarking. To give our AMD and Intel processors a viable test, we've increased the physics load, while dropping many of the graphics settings. This will help provide a more CPU-specific benchmark test, while ensuring that the graphics card is not the limiting factor.
Due to the much higher physics load, Company of Heroes is one of the few benchmarks that shows a definite advantage for the improved processor architectures and easily scales to higher clock speeds. This game does like the Phenom II X4 core design, and as long as we're comparing it to similarly-priced Core 2 models, processors like the Phenom II X4 810 stack up well. But as the Core i7-920's score proves, Intel owns this benchmark at the top-end.
Our Unreal Tournament 3 benchmarking consists of a Flyby run in the WAR-MarketDistrict map, which was chosen due to its heavy in-game battles and sprawling indoor and outdoor locations. This provides a reliable score, and is repeatable through subsequent runs. The test resolutions remain at 1024x768, while game details have been set at 3.
Unreal Tournament 3 is one of the few real-world games where the Phenom II X4 can easily compete with Intel. The Phenom II X4 810 finishes in a near-dead heat with the Core 2 Quad Q9400, while the surprising Phenom II X3 720 comes within a hair of matching the Core 2 Quad Q9450.
World in Conflict is another real-time tactical war game, complete with eye-dropping visuals that are demanding enough to drop a mainstream video card in its tracks. It's a bit different from traditional RTS games, in that the war and strategy parts are put to the forefront, while the resource gathering and base construction tasks are taken out of the equation. In this test, we've used the in-game benchmarking tool, and used a standard 1024x768 resolution at Medium detail settings.
World in Conflict is another good result for AMD, as the Phenom II line competes well with the majority of Intel processors, but once we hit the Core 2 Quad Q9450 and Core i7-920, it's a different story.
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars is the latest iteration of the id Software/Quake gaming line, and is set in the same basic Quake world. This is a very popular multi-player game, and makes a very consistent benchmark platform. We have used the latest 1.5 game update at 1024x768 high details, and tested with a game demo on the Canyon map.
ET: Quake Wars benchmarking is another test where the Phenom II can handle the Core 2 Quads, and the Phenom II X3 720 proves this by matching the performance of the Core 2 Quad Q9400.
Overall, the benchmark results were up to our expectations, and the Phenom II X4 810 performed at about where we anticipated a 2.6 GHz, cache-stunted Phenom II core would. It did quite well against the mainstream Intel quad cores, and could be mentioned in the same breath as a Core 2 Quad Q9400. The Phenom II X3 720 is a far more interesting processor, as this was our first glimpse of a triple-core Phenom II, and at 2.8 GHz, it matches the X4 920 as the second highest clocked model.
With one less physical core, the X3 720 does suffer a bit in the high-end multi-threading tests, but its full 6MB of L3 cache and a higher clock speed help make up for it. In the gaming arena, where 2 cores is often enough, the Phenom II X3 720 regularly blew past the Phenom II X4 810 and performed very close to the level of a 2.8 GHz Phenom II X4. And that's not even mentioning that this is a Black Edition model, with an unlocked multiplier just primed for overclocking.
Although this is not a brand new core design, the AM3 revision of the Phenom II deserves close examination for overclocking potential. The Phenom II X4 810 is a standard locked model, and since Black Editions are available for similar prices, we're assuming the hardcore AMD crowd will go black and not go back. So that brings us to the Phenom II X3 720 BE, and its unlocked multiplier and 2.8 GHz default clock speed.
Our overclock testing used the standard reference configuration, supplemented by a powerful Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme heatsink + 120mm fan. At the default 1.31V voltage, we got the Phenom II X3 720 as high as 3.3-3.4 GHz, which was similar to our previous results with the Phenom II X4 940. At the next increment of 1.4V, we managed to hit 3.5 and 3.6 GHz, but we raised it to 1.43V in order to reach 3.7 GHz.
Unfortunately, 3.8 GHz would not load Vista until we raised the voltage levels to 1.46V-1.47V. But that was as far as we could take this particular CPU and even after raising voltages to 1.5V and some extensive fiddling with the CPU, NB, chipset, HT, and even DRAM voltage settings, the CPU would not remain stable at 3.9 GHz.
This was the same upper limit we experienced with the Phenom II X4 940 BE, but overclocking the Phenom II X3 720 BE was much easier at the mid-range speeds. We reached 3.6 GHz without even trying, and even 3.7 and 3.8 GHz were not that bad, but we hit a serious wall at 3.9 GHz, like the chip just slammed the OC door in our face. But for those looking to easily move to a 3.5-3.6 GHz triple-core, the Phenom II X3 720 BE is a great bet.
In order to measure power consumption, we took each of the AMD and Intel reference systems, ran the outlet through a Power Analyzer, and then compiled total system (minus display) consumption figures (in Watts) for Idle and Load scenarios. In order to keep the systems and results consistent, we used the same configuration for the AMD and Intel processors as listed on the Test Systems page.
The first test measures the total system power usage when the AMD and Intel processors are set to power-saving mode. For AMD, this means enabling Cool'n'Quiet, while for Intel we need to activate Enhanced SpeedStep. The test was performed after the operating system has loaded, and all of the various software and hardware components have initialized and we hit a consistent power reading.
This first set of power usage results give us another amazing example of the 45nm Phenom II architecture, and what an improvement it is over the first-generation Phenom core. With power savings enabled, the Phenom II X3 720 system finished with the lowest consumption total, and the Phenom II X4 810 placed third.
The second test changes the operating conditions from Idle to Load, and the SANDRA Multimedia CPU benchmark pushes processor usage to 100%, while ensuring that no extraneous hard drive or peripheral activity artificially ramps up the power consumption rates. The results using SANDRA are also incredibly consistent, with the wattage numbers remaining stable through the entire test.
At full CPU load, there is a small shift in the chart, as the Core 2 Duo E8500 takes over the top spot, which is hardly surprising given that it's a dual core. The Phenom II X3 720 and X4 810 are not far behind and place second and third respectively. AMD dropped both of these to the 95W threshold, compared to 125W for the Phenom II X4 920 and 940, and it's borne out in the consumption totals.
Please keep in mind that these numbers relate to total system power consumption, of which the CPU is only one part. In evaluations like this, relative placing is sometimes more important than the base numbers, which can change based on the platform and peripheral mix.
The AMD price list includes the Phenom II X3 720 BE at $145 and the Phenom II X4 810 at $175, in quantities, but expect street prices to be very close. This compares to the Phenom II 920 ($195) and X4 940 ($225), and the Phenom X4 9650 ($142), 9750 ($153), 9850 ($163), and 9950 ($173). Both of these new Phenom II processors are nice values, especially the Phenom II X3 720 BE, which not only sports an unlocked multiplier and a 2.8 GHz clock, but a full 6MB of L3 cache as well.
On the Intel side, these latest Phenom II X3 720 and X4 810 processors are priced lower than competitive Core 2 Quad processors, as the Core 2 Quad Q6600 is $200 and both the Core 2 Quad Q9300 and Q9400 sell for $230. The Core 2 Duo has a much better shot, as the Core 2 Duo E7300 ($125), E7500 ($150) and E8400 ($165) represent the true price challengers to the Phenom II X3 720 BE. The Core i7-920 ($290) would seem to be a value contender, but platform costs are much higher.
* Please note that these prices were taken at the time of review and are not meant to reflect long-term trends.
The first wave of 45nm Phenom II processors showed that AMD still has a real chance in the desktop processor market, and that the company finally has a potential Core 2 killer. This latest release does shore up some questions about Socket AM3, and gets the core back on a full 2.0 GHz HT link, but it still doesn't do anything to raise performance. The 2.6 GHz Phenom II X4 810 is a good release for bargain hunters, but the more important one is certainly the Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition, as this not only provides a better-than-dual core alternative to the Intel Core 2 Duo, but also brings hardcore overclocking to the entry-level.
