New AMD Phenom X3 Vs. Phenom X4

Features
By
published

Benchmarks And Settings

Swipe to scroll horizontally
3D Games
Warhammer Mark of ChaosVersion: 1.006.000Video Mode: 1280x1024Video Quality: game defaultMultiple CPU/CoreDemo: THG Timedemo (1 minutes)
Quake 4Version: 1.3 FinalVideo Mode: 1280x1024Video Quality: game defaultBenchmark I: THG TimedemoBenchmark II: playnettimedemo id_demo001(official ID-Soft NetTimeDemo)
Unreal Tournemant 2004Version: 3369UMark: 2.0.0Video Mode: 1280x1024High Image QualityBots: 16Benchmark: AS-Junkyard
Serious Sam 2Version: 2.070Video Mode: 1024x768HDR Rendering: offRenderer: Direct3DFilrering mode: noneAntialiasing mode: noneBenchmark: Greendale
F.E.A.RVersion: 1.08 RetailVideo Mode: 1280x1024Computer: HighGraphics Card: CustomFSAA: offTexture Filtering: TrilinearBenchmark: Performance Test
Supreme CommanderVersion: 3.220Video Mode: 1024x768Video Quality: game defaultVsync = offBenchmark: real 60 second gamewith real three computer physics
PreyVersion: 1.3Video Mode: 1280x1024Video Quality: game defaultVsync = offBenchmark: THG-Demo
Audio
iTunes 7.2Version: 7.1.1.5Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 minHigh Quality (160 kbps)
Lame MP3Version 3.98 Beta 3 (05-22-2007)Audio CD "Terminator II SE", 53 minwave to mp3160 kbps
Video
Pinnacle Studio 11 PlusVersion: 11.0.0.5082Encoding and Transition RenderingPrivate MPEG2-Cam-MovieVideo: 720 x 480 Pixel, NTSC, 6000 kbits/secAudio: MPEG Layer 2, 224 kbits/sec 16 Bit, Sereo 48 KHzFile Type: MPEG-2 (DVD Compatible)
TMPEG 4.2Version: 4.2.10.211import file:Terminator 2 SE DVD (720x576, 16:9) 2 MinutesDolby Digital, 48000 Hz, 6-Kanal, EnglishAdvanced Acoustic Engine MP3 Encoder (160 kbps)
DivX 6.6.1Version: 6.6.1- Main Menu -Profile: Home Theater Profile (720 x 576)1-pass, 780 kbit/s- Codec Menu -Encoding mode: Insane QualityEnhanced multithreading
XviD 1.1.2Version: 1.1.2 (01/11/2006)Target qantizer: 1.00 (maximum quality)
Clone DVD 2Version: 2.908DVD "Terminator II SE" (english version)Transcoding from DVD-9 to DVD-4.7Audio: English Dolby AC-3/6 (surround) - DTSSubtitle: no
Mainconcept H.264 EncoderVersion: 2.0MPEG2 to MPEG2 (H.264)MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec24 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG2)Audio: MPEG Layer 2 (48 kHz, 2 Channel, 16 Bit)Stream: TransportCodec: H.264Mode: NTSC (29.97 FPS)Profile: High
Adobe Premiere Pro 2.0 HDTVWindows Media Encoder 9.1 AP HDTVWindows Audio Encoder 10 ProVersion: 2.0NTSC MPEG2-HDTV 1920x1080 (24 sec)Import: Mainconcept NTSC HDTV 1080iExport: Adobe Media Encoder- Video -Windows Media Video 9 Advanced ProfileEncoding Passes: oneBitrate Mode: ConstantFrame: 1920x1080Frame Rate: 29.97Maximum Bitrate [kbps]: 2000Image Quality: 50.00- Audio -Windows Media Audio 10 ProfessionalEncoding Passes: oneBitrate Mode: ConstantAudio Format: 160 kbps, 44.1 kHz, 2 channel 16 bit (A/V) CBR
HD Playback (Blue Ray)PowerDVD HD 7.3Blue Ray - Disc (James Bond - Casino Royale)Video Mode: 1920x1080p (full screen)Codec: H.264
Applications
Grisoft AVG Anti-VirusVersion: 7.5.467Virus base: 269.6.1./776Benchmark: Windows XP (Windows folder)
WinrarVersion 3.70 BETA 8Compression = BestDictionary = 4096 kBBenchmark: THG-Workload
Auodesk 3D Studio Max 9Version: 9.0Rendering a Dragon picturerendering HTDV 1920x1080
Maxon Cinema 4D Release 10Version: 10.008Rendering from a scene"Water drop at a Rose"Resolution: 1280 x 1024 - 8Bit (50 frames)
Adobe Photoshop CS 3Version: 10.0x20070321Filtering from a 69 MB TIF-PhotoBenchmark: Tom’s Hardware-Benchmark V1.0.0.4Programmed by Tom’s Hardware using Delphi 2006Filers:CrosshatchGlassSumi-eAccented EdgesAngled StrokesSprayed Strokes
Adobe Acrobat 7 ProfessionalVersion: 7.0.9Settings: High Quality PrintCompatibility: Acrobat 8 (PDF 1.7)Security: High (128-bit RC4)
Microsoft Powerpoint 2007Version: 2007PPT to PDFPowerpoint Document (115 Pages)Adobe PDF-Printer
Deep Fritz 10Version: Nov 16 2006
Synthetic Benchmarks
3DMark06Version: 1.101280x1024 - 32 bitGraphics and CPU Default Benchmark
PCMark05 ProVersion: 1.2.0CPU and Memory TestsWindows Media Player 10.00.00.3646Windows Media Encoder 9.00.00.2980
SiSoftware Sandra XI SP1cVersion 2007.5.11.40CPU Test = CPU Arithmetic / MultiMediaMemory Test = Bandwidth Benchmark
Tom's Hardware News Team
Tom's Hardware News Team

Tom's Hardware's dedicated news crew consists of both freelancers and staff with decades of experience reporting on the latest developments in CPUs, GPUs, super computing, Raspberry Pis and more.

29 Comments Comment from the forums
  • rhorwitz
    The Phenom is a still born product, much like the K-5 back 15 years ago. AMD is facing bankruptcy and all they can do is piss away money to release a product that can't even compare with the technology they made 5 years ago. How pathetic!! AMD would have been more successful if they invested in shrinking existing technology to 45 nm and and placing two 2-cores on a chip like Intel.
    Reply
  • yadge
    On page 12, I think you mean the X3 8750 is 3.2% faster than the Core 2 Duo E6550.
    Reply
  • Arnagath
    Well as it is now, amd can turn of a core and we have the X3, so I think it is the smarter solution. Sort of more long term than intels choice, intel still has not caught up with AMD in some areas and this is one area.

    I still have faith the tide can always be turned, something you thought impossible with Pentium D vs AMD 64 X2. So it can happen again, if not I think we should make the EU take money from intel and give to AMD :P
    Reply
  • rhorwitz
    Arnagath,
    Intel's interim solution was the Pentium D, which was basically taking two P4 and placing them on a chip. It didn't match AMD's performance, but it kept them in the hunt. AMD's response to conroe should have been the same; take two shrunken k8+x2 and place on a die. In this fashion they could have created some distance so that they could have come to a proactive solution to Intel's salvo.
    Reply
  • caamsa
    My understanding is that these X3 phenoms are in place of a X2 phenom.

    Got this from AnandTech:

    AMD doesn't have the resources to spin a dual-core Phenom die, so what better way of repurposing the quad-core die (especially if one core is defective) than to make a Phenom chip with less than four cores. Sure it's not the most efficient way to manufacture, but AMD doesn't have the luxury of producing a number of different Phenom die at this point. The triple-core Phenom strategy makes perfect sense if you're AMD, the question is: does it make sense if you're an end user?
    Reply
  • lopopo
    rhorwitzThe Phenom is a still born product, much like the K-5 back 15 years ago. AMD is facing bankruptcy and all they can do is piss away money to release a product that can't even compare with the technology they made 5 years ago. How pathetic!! AMD would have been more successful if they invested in shrinking existing technology to 45 nm and and placing two 2-cores on a chip like Intel.
    very true
    Reply
  • i think your totally mistaken
    Reply
  • cabose369
    The small Phenom X3 model, the 8750, clocks at a rate of 2.10 GHz. When compared to the Athlon 64 6400+ with 3.20 GHz and 6000+ with 3.00 GHz, it simply can’t keep up for many applications.

    I think you mean to say the small Phenom X3 model, the 8450.
    Reply
  • callahs
    I've gone from x2-4200 to a new intel E8400. What a difference! I paid half as much ($189 and 4 gig of ddr800@ $59)and the intel chip just crushes the AMD in every way at stock settings. With the difference of 2 1/2 yrs, AMD should have produced quads soon after with the old x2 format but that may have only treaded water against the conroe. Intel did their homework and gets an 'A'.

    I'd like to see the sony 'core' put into action other than yellow dogs lunix or Mercury's blader...sweeeet. They have six unit ps3's making 1 tflop @ 19k! :}
    Reply
  • quanger
    i wouldnt waste my money on a triple core phenom when i can get a 6400X2 for less. I wouldnt even consider it if they were the same price. These phenom triple cores may sell more than X2 because its easier to market if one product has more "cores". Anyways, AMD should stop dicking around and focus on raising the Phenom X4 clocks quicker.
    Reply