Trending

New AMD Phenom X3 Vs. Phenom X4

By Build Your Own 

Thermal Design Power: Phenom X3 only XX Watts

In the power consumption measurements, the Phenom X3 does not do as well in Cool’n’Quiet mode.

Despite the lower core voltage and one CPU core less, the Phenom X3 uses more energy in the energy saving mode than the Phenom X4 9600. The Phenom X3 also shows that the processors with B3 stepping, in this case, Cool’n’Quiet mode require more power than the older B2 versions.

With all CPU cores under full load, the Phenom X3 is able to prove its lower energy consumption properties.

The fastest Phenom X3 8750 with 2.40 GHz requires 10 watt less than the Phenom X4 9600 with 2.30 GHz and four CPU cores. The Phenom X3 does very well compared to the traditional Dual-Core Athlon 64 X2 models. It requires 5.8 watt less than the 4800+ which is clocked at the same rate and has 512 kB of cache and also one core less.

Compared to the traditional Athlon 64 X2, upgrading to a Phenom X3 is an option which is worth doing in terms of energy consumption.

29 Comments Comment from the forums
  • rhorwitz 24 April 2008 02:35
    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 24 April 2008 02:36
    On page 12, I think you mean the X3 8750 is 3.2% faster than the Core 2 Duo E6550.
    Reply
  • Arnagath 24 April 2008 02:47
    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 24 April 2008 03:18
    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 24 April 2008 03:53
    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 24 April 2008 04:22
    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
  • 24 April 2008 06:29
    i think your totally mistaken
    Reply
  • cabose369 24 April 2008 07:07
    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 24 April 2008 08:49
    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 24 April 2008 14:43
    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