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
Procurion - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
Cool. My next question would be to wonder why it didn't kick in for the other tests? I guess it wasn't enabled for them? Looks good overall.JarredWalton - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
See page 4 - Turbo mode tends to activate pretty much any time a load is on the CPU. But it's not really "unfair" as all i7 users get that benefit without doing anything extra, plus i7 chips still overclock far beyond that point.ChemicalAffinity - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
Best post ever.whatthehey - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
Congratulations on the cryptic post... or is that pointless post? I'm guessing you're suggesting that the words listed were used with two different companies - AMD and Intel - but if so they certainly weren't used in this article in any way I can see. Care to enlighten the rest of us on the point of your comment?Some people are too clever for their own good; others merely think they're clever. Guess which one you are.
Lokinhow - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
Oh man, I thinking about the OC3.9GHz on Vista x64
4.2GHz on Vista x86
Why it happens?
Does the results are the same using XP x86/x64 and Windows 7 x86/x64?
That would be interesting to see if it is possible to reach 4.2GHz on Windows 7 x64
Griswold - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
Dont hold your breath. Theres more registers (etc) in use under a 64bit OS than a 32bit one. Its highly unlikely that there will be any difference on the exact same hardware. And even if there is a difference between xp/vista/7, 32bit 7 will outdo 64bit 7 as well. 64bit was never the ideal choice for overclocking records...Spoelie - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
In the CS4 test, given the large increase in performance when just going from DDR2 to DDR3, would a faster NB clock (2->2.6/2.8ghz) and faster than DDR1333 memory, while keeping the core at default clock, level the playing field with the core2 processors?Seems that in this particular test the phenom is starved for data.
duploxxx - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
why do you use these 1GB dimm's in ddr3 config? I would assume you have more oc issues with 4 dimms in stead off 2 dimms?G.Skill DDR2-800 2 x 2GB (4-4-4-12)
G.Skill DDR2-1066 2 x 2GB (5-5-5-15)
Qimonda DDR3-1066 4 x 1GB (7-7-7-20)
Corsair DDR3-1333 4 x 1GB (7-7-7-20)
Holly - Thursday, April 23, 2009 - link
Nice article :-)btw... last paragraph on the first page... "faster than the Core 2 Duo Q9550." should say "faster than the Core 2 Quad Q9550."
ibm386 - Sunday, June 27, 2010 - link
Intel and Amd are owned by the same person. Since a person can't have monoply in U.S. It has been divided into two different names and obviously diff. CEOs.cheers.