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
strikeback03 - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
Well, the most expensive X58 board is over $400, while the cheapest AM2+ boards are under $50, do you want them to say the range is over $350? I'd guess the thinking behind that statement was that you would pair the most expensive processor AMD sells with a higher-end board - the AMD boards top out at about $190, about where the i7 boards start (ignoring rebates).just4U - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link
It's the minimum entry level into each that I think most people would be curious about. The higher end stuff can really skyrocket the price after all and I am pretty sure it would be filled with features not likely to interest the majority.strikeback03 - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link
Again though, those who are looking to buy the 955 are probably interested in some of the stuff the better boards offer. Considering the performance available form the 720 or 940 at cheaper prices, I am still doubtful how many people would go for the 955 and the cheapest motherboard possible.duploxxx - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
arrgghh stupied newegg search engine and no edit on anandtech poststhe msi costs 131, that is still 40$
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...
ssj4Gogeta - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
AMD is getting close and that's a good thing as all of us know. Not that I use AMD, but low prices on Intel chips is good.But I think that AMD is soon going to be left behind again when Intel introduces the affordable i5. From what I know the only difference between i7 is that i5 has only 2 channels of RAM and it has the PCIe controller on the package. Surely it won't be too far behind i7 in terms of performance.
Also can someone clarify whether i5 will be using QPI?
duploxxx - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
well then you are one of the so many that have an issue about best price/performance and waht about know, all non i7 buyers are better of pricewise with a AMD based system unless you really want to stick with dualcore for no future at all... . On what planet were you living from 2003-2006 when AMD was the better choice of buying instead off Intel.Sagath - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
Yes, and No. It uses a QPI derivative called CPI if my memory serves correct.I dont remember where I read this, so I cannot referance you to it. Nor do I know the difference between the two. Sorry.
knutjb - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
AMD still has a long way to go but they are improving. I am glad to see them improve since it pressures Intel to lower prices that benefit the majority of us who can't afford Intel's high end. The closer the competition the better for the consumer, we can't afford to see AMD die off as some joke about.Griswold - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
"..but as applications and workloads become more threaded the i7 could be a wiser long-term purchase. "I bought my Q6600 in 2007 and for good reasons (then). I made good use of the four cores - but I've been hearing the above quoted sentence sind 2007 and before but it still has not become true and probably wont before quite some time.
Where is this "more threaded" and when will it actually arrive? :P
The situation is such, that I'm definitely going to wait for i5 for the next upgrade and may grab a dualie with hyperthreading, simply because theres only so much I need 4 physical cores for now so it starts to seem like 2 cores plus the two additional logic cores is the more cost efficient and rational way.
An i7 is definitely not going to be my thing - I just dont need 8 logical cores enough to make it worthwhile.
But maybe I can stick to my trusty Q6600 long enough for AMD to serve me the perfect solution, maybe with Bulldozer?
ssj4Gogeta - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
Why do you look at the number of cores and decide? Look at the performance numbers and decided.Besides Hyper threading can't deliver performance boost in all applications. So if you're going 2 cores with hyperthreading you may not see as much performance as 4 physical cores in many apps. You need to look at performance numbers for the apps you most use, not the number of cores.