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
Overall System Performance - SYSMark 2007
SYSMark 2007 is an application benchmark suite that plays back real world usage scenarios in four categories (E-Learning, Video Creation, Productivity and 3D), using the following applications:
Adobe After Effects 7
Adobe Illustrator CS2
Adobe Photoshop CS2
AutoDesk 3ds Max 8
Macromedia Flash 8
Microsoft Excel 2003
Microsoft Outlook 2003
Microsoft PowerPoint 2003
Microsoft Word 2003
Microsoft Project 2003
Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 9 series
Sony Vegas 7
SketchUp 5
WinZip 10.0
Performance is measured in each individual category and then an overall score is reported.
Overall SYSMark performance shows the newcomers exactly where we'd expect them: at the bottom of the list. Remember that the vast majority of applications don't really scale well from two to four cores, and thus there's no real performance advantage that the lower clocked Phenom X4s hold over the much more affordable X3s.
In a performance-per-dollar comparison here, Intel sweeps the floor with AMD regardless of what CPU we use (the $205 9850BE is bested by Intel's $133 E7200). But SYSMark 2007, while very application-centric, is still only one datapoint. Let's see how the rest of the applications fare
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
View All Comments
Regs - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link
Between cool n' quite and flimsy power management, it just seems like AMD overshot their goals. Though to me, it seems like they could easily be fixed in Shanghai, but that's if they can keep all four cores busy instead I have 3 cores at stall, and one pumping at max in threaded or shared instruction instances. This will though cause more power consumption, and I think you guys all ready said that mobo support is just not their to power these suckers. You can have your cake, you just cant eat it.What do you goes think about AMD at 2.6 GHz? Looks more competitive stacked up to Intel's finniest at the given price point. Just makes me wonder if the over complicated power management features are keeping AMD from hitting 3.0 GHz or above. What do you think is holding AMD back?
DigitalFreak - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link
Shitty engineering?Griswold - Wednesday, July 2, 2008 - link
Well, I dont know for sure. But its definitely not moronic comments from dumbasses such as you.Assimilator1 - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link
Yeah it looks like they've messed up the clock speeds for the lower Phenoms too, lol.Aries1470 - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link
Hi,Just found the following strange:
AMD Phenom X4 9850 $205
AMD Phenom X4 9750 $215
The slower one is more expensive, while in the article it has the prices reversed?
"The new Phenom X4 9950 will occupy the $235 space, which will push the 9850 down to $215. The Phenom 9750 will go away temporarily to make room for the new chips at the high end, leaving the 9650 at $195 and the 9550 at $175."
I wonder which one is correct ;-) Hmm... I think a proof reader and an eye for detail is needed :-)
Ok, now for me to read the rest of the article.
Btw, any update on the new VIA Nano CPU - Codename Isaiah? Will there be a review? It is as fast as a 9150e or faster at the same clock speed? It has much less power usage. Now if someone over here could do a review or get more info that would be great, since it is like there is no other x86 competitor out there...
That's all from me.
Gary Key - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link
The 9750 pricing will not be changed by AMD officially and thankfully that model is being phased out in the retail sector and replaced by the 9850BE.I have a picture of the VIA Nano PR flag from Computex and a handout explaining how it should perform. That is about as far as VIA is willing to go at this point with information. I did hear from some OEMS that VIA was not even close to getting the CPU out this summer as originally thought, much less advanced reviews. However, we do push them on an almost daily basis for it.