Socket AM3: AMD's Phenom II Gets DDR3

Power Consumption

The above power consumption chart is representive of a full PCMark Vantage run on six of the eight processors we benchmarked. Even with the omission of two, it's still a fairly intimidating graph. But it's full of good information.

All of the tests in this review were run with each processor's power-saving features enabled. This is something we've shied away from in the past, since turning on functionality like Cool'n'Quiet and EIST do affect performance. However, it's more representative of real-world usage.

Without even getting into the averages and consumption numbers, you can clearly see that the Phenom II X4 810, with its 4 MB L3 cache and DDR3-based platform, is clearly using the least amount of power under idle conditions. The simulated Phenom II X4 910, denoted by the black line, uses significantly more power, suggesting that there are palpable efficiency gains to be had by adopting a DDR3 platform (though some of the difference must also be attributed to the smaller cache).

Averaging out the results from each run yields the following:


Phenom II X4 810
Sim. Phenom II X4 910
Phenom X4 9950 BE
Phenom X3 8750
Core 2 Duo E8500
Core i7 920
Average Power
157.59 W
172.63 W
191.66 W
196.80 W
161.08 W
195.95 W
Runtime
59:57
1:10:45
59:55
1:00:38
55:29
58:28
Power Consumption in Wh
157.46
203.56
191.40
198.87
148.95
190.94


One of the lowest average power measurements and the quickest runtime help Intel's Core 2 Duo E8500 finish in front here, but it's followed closely by AMD's new Phenom II X4 810. The simulated Phenom II X4 does very well in average power, but because its run took particularly long, overall consumption results don't look as good. Even still, we recognize that, more often than not, your PC is going to be idling, where you'll see the Phenom II chips running at 800 MHz and sipping power rather than gulping it down.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
101 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • groo
    I sure don't see the point of spending cash on DDR3 unless you are also spending cash on i7. I woudn't mind a CPU that can handle DDR3 in the future, but there sure isn't a reason toupgrade to it at today's memory prices.
    10
  • Other Comments
  • kelfen
    Cheering the underdog in hopes for better compitition to benifit the consumer!
    9
  • groo
    I sure don't see the point of spending cash on DDR3 unless you are also spending cash on i7. I woudn't mind a CPU that can handle DDR3 in the future, but there sure isn't a reason toupgrade to it at today's memory prices.
    10
  • Aatish
    nice review... but....
    strangely AMD is performing better than core i7 920!
    what did I miss? in previous benchmark done by you guys showed AMD performing quite less than what I see in this benchmark! can anyone clear my confusion? please!:)
    6
  • Commlock
    Very good test indeed that shows, IMHO, to go with an overclocked Core i7 if DDR3 is to be preferred. Otherwise, sticking with DDR2 RAM, an AM2+ MoBo and A Phenom II 940-like CPU seems the best optimized system. However, concerns can be put forward on the continuity of the system in couple of years' time, where simply upgrading without major component changes can be discussed.
    0
  • sohei
    an AM2 mobo is compatible with AM3?
    2
  • Anonymous
    I understand the fact that you guys compare cpu's in the same price region plus whats available to you and the socket upgrade and all that. But i would really like to see how the AMD 940 Black Edition compare to Intel Corei7 EE 965. And maybe include the corei7 940 to. An all out performance battle with just the benchmark figures that counts
    -6
  • waffle911
    Quote:
    The 940 runs at 3 GHz. The 920 and 720 both cruise at 2.8 GHz. But the 910, 810, and 710 all run at 2.6 GHz. There goes the idea that each increment of 10 corresponds to 100 MHz. The 805 chugs along at 2.5 GHz.

    Looks to me like every increment of 10 in the designation yields a 200MHz clock increment, and 5 being 100MHz. But then either the 940 should actually be the 930. Then again, Volvo's recent product nomenclature doesn't add up, either. the V50 is the wagon variant of the S40, and the V70 was the wagon variant of the S60, but is now of the new S80. But they can't change it to V90 because then the Cross-Country variant of the V70 would have to be called he XC90 instead of XC70—but they already have an XC90 SUV. Digging themselves into a hole of consumer confusion, AMD and Volvo both.

    But why is AMD shafting early adopters by shutting out AM2+ PhenomII from the AM3 platform without even offering an AM3 920/940?
    6
  • Anonymous
    Well, can't agree with socket chart.
    Let's see (long run)
    AMD&Intel: Socket 7 (intel up to some 266MHz?, AMD up to 550MHz)
    Intel Slot 1 - with FCPGA adapters up to some 1200MHz?
    AMD SlotA - with socketA adapters up to some 1600MHz?
    PPGA s370 ~ 600MHz?
    FCPGA (coppermine) 1100MHz
    FCPGA2 (tualatin) 1500MHz?
    Guess what...PPGA/FCPGA/FCPGA2 were the same socket (s370).
    Now...SocketA ranged from 800MHz Durons to 2GHz AthlonXP 3200+
    P4 start was with socket 423, but intel soon abandoned it for 478, however there were some adapters for some CPUs which allowed s478 CPUs to work on s423 mobos.
    AMD with A64 introduced single channel DDR platform on s754. Later in 939 there was enhancement with dual channel and dual core. But then DDR2 appeared with quite low prices - so they moved to AM2.
    Intel brought LGA775, but most chipsets for Prescott couldn't handle Core 2, later C2D FSB800MHz chipsets couldn't handle FSB1066 and 1333MHz C2D/C2Q cpus. And now we get LGA1366, 1156 and some more for the same familly. Well, I guess intel is more disruptive than AMD. I can put PhenomII 810 AM3 to my AM2 mobo on M1695+NF3, some NF3 ASRock users can do that too. AM2/2+/3 is on the best way to be worthy SocketA successor.
    2
  • raden_muaz
    I've been waiting for so long for this phenom ii to come.
    At last, phenom beats i7 in some kind of way.

    Anyway, I never bought Intel for years because:
    http://stopthewall.org/worldwideactivism/982.shtml
    http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-intel.html
    2
  • sohei
    there are 5 sokets technically but 2 physically
    am2
    am2/am2+
    am2+
    am2+/am3
    am3
    my question is : somebody try a am2/am2+ with a am3 cpu?
    -1
  • t85us
    @raden_muaz

    what did you expected from intel ? guess who they are ? the same who (probably) massacred your (i think) nation.
    that's why i won't ever buy anything that is related to intel
    -12
  • nerrawg
    Nice to see some OC friendly chips from AMD!
    1
  • raden_muaz
    @t85us
    I do expect Intel to excel far better than AMD (I'd love to buy an i7, but I just can't)

    About the massacred nation - I'm a Malaysian - they massacred my muslims brothers in Gaza.
    -13
  • VTOLfreak
    There's something funny about these i7 920 scores. I replaced a Q6600 OCed to 3.2GHz for a i7 920 and the 920 wiped the floor with the Q6600 3.2GHz without any overclocking. So how can a E8500 with only 2 cores at 3.16GHz outrun a i7 920?

    After I overclocked my i7 920 to 3.6GHz, my old Q6600 rig started looking like a mule in comparison.
    1
  • sohei
    e 8400,e 8500 are better in games comparative with q 6600 (with stock clocks)
    it is easy to synchronize 2 cores at 3 ghz than 4 at 3 ghz
    this is the problem with multicore technology ...n+1 cores = n-1 efficiency ..it's like engines you want torque or speed?
    in games GHz are more important than other things
    1
  • sohei
    this amd cpus are great!with stock voltages you can pass 3 ghz easily ..... yaaaamaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
    a new species of velocity raptor
    -3
  • neiroatopelcc
    So in theory I could buy a new 720BE cpu and use it in my old tforce 550 (nforce 550 chipset) board?
    0
  • jameskangster
    Ok, I must be missing something here. I compared the AM3, AM2+ reviews from Tom's Hardware and Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3512), and the results seem to contradict each other specifically relating to the game benchmarks. I understand there are subtle differences in the configuration setup, but i7 performs not so favorably according to Tom's Hardware's benchmarks, whereas at Anandtech's review, it pretty much stays on top in every benchmark.
    3
  • t85us
    @neiroatopelcc
    well, theoretically that's the plan.


    I'm also wondering, if my asus m2a-vm mobo will support these new cpus. that would be great
    0
  • jameskangster
    I apologize for keep posting other site's reviews, but it just bugs me that the other site's have different results posted compared to Tom's Hardware. Extremetech's review (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2340569,00.asp) benchmarks are also similar to Anandtech's results. Although, they use Nvidia 9800 GTX. Maybe Tom's Hardware could review its performance tests and systems setup?
    3