AMD Phenom II X4 975 vs AMD Ryzen 5 3600: What is the difference?
23points
AMD Phenom II X4 975
61points
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Comparison winner
vs
66 facts in comparison
AMD Phenom II X4 975
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Why is AMD Phenom II X4 975 better than AMD Ryzen 5 3600?
- 128KB bigger L1 cache?
512KBvs384KB
Why is AMD Ryzen 5 3600 better than AMD Phenom II X4 975?
- 1.5x faster CPU speed?
6 x 3.6GHzvs4 x 3.6GHz - 1867MHz higher ram speed?
3200MHzvs1333MHz - 8 more CPU threads?
12vs4 - 38nm smaller semiconductor size?
7nmvs45nm - 1MB bigger L2 cache?
3MBvs2MB - 3.8x higher PassMark result?
17860vs4697 - 60W lower TDP?
65Wvs125W - 26MB bigger L3 cache?
32MBvs6MB
Which are the most popular comparisons?
AMD Phenom II X4 975
vs
AMD FX-6300
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 4500
AMD Phenom II X4 975
vs
Intel Core i5-2320
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5500
AMD Phenom II X4 975
vs
AMD FX-8350
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5600G
AMD Phenom II X4 975
vs
AMD Phenom II X4 965
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
AMD Phenom II X4 975
vs
Intel Celeron G440
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
AMD Ryzen 5 4600G
AMD Phenom II X4 975
vs
AMD Athlon II X4 638
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
AMD Ryzen 7 5700X
AMD Phenom II X4 975
vs
AMD Phenom II N970
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
Intel Core i5-10400
AMD Phenom II X4 975
vs
Intel Core i5-2310
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
Intel Core i5-9400F
AMD Phenom II X4 975
vs
Intel Core i5-3470S
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
Intel Core i3-12100
AMD Phenom II X4 975
vs
AMD AMD Phenom II X4 970
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
vs
AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Price comparison
Cheap alternatives
User reviews
Overall Rating
AMD Phenom II X4 975
0 User reviews
AMD Phenom II X4 975
0. 0/10
0 User reviews
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
5 User reviews
AMD Ryzen 5 3600
9.0/10
5 User reviews
Features
Value for money
No reviews yet
9.2/10
5 votes
Gaming
No reviews yet
8.8/10
4 votes
Performance
No reviews yet
9.0/10
5 votes
Reliability
No reviews yet
9.2/10
5 votes
Energy efficiency
No reviews yet
9.3/10
4 votes
Performance
CPU speed
4 x 3.6GHz
6 x 3.6GHz
The CPU speed indicates how many processing cycles per second can be executed by a CPU, considering all of its cores (processing units). It is calculated by adding the clock rates of each core or, in the case of multi-core processors employing different microarchitectures, of each group of cores.
CPU threads
More threads result in faster performance and better multitasking.
turbo clock speed
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
4.2GHz
When the CPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.
Has an unlocked multiplier
✔AMD Phenom II X4 975
✔AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Some processors come with an unlocked multiplier which makes them easy to overclock, allowing you to gain increased performance in games and other apps.
L2 cache
A larger L2 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
L3 cache
A larger L3 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
L1 cache
A larger L1 cache results in faster CPU and system-wide performance.
L2 core
0.5MB/core
0.5MB/core
More data can be stored in the L2 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
L3 core
1.5MB/core
5.33MB/core
More data can be stored in the L3 cache for access by each core of the CPU.
Benchmarks
PassMark result
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using multiple threads.
PassMark result (single)
This benchmark measures the performance of the CPU using a single thread.
Geekbench 5 result (multi)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s multi-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
Cinebench R20 (multi) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s multi-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
Cinebench R20 (single) result
Unknown.
Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
Cinebench R20 is a benchmark tool that measures a CPU’s single-core performance by rendering a 3D scene.
Geekbench 5 result (single)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
Geekbench 5 is a cross-platform benchmark that measures a processor’s single-core performance. (Source: Primate Labs, 2022)
Blender (bmw27) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
235seconds
The Blender (bmw27) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
Blender (classroom) result
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
705.9seconds
The Blender (classroom) benchmark measures the performance of a processor by rendering a 3D scene. More powerful processors can render the scene in less time.
performance per watt
This means the CPU is more efficient, giving a greater amount of performance for each watt of power used.
Integrated graphics
GPU clock speed
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
∅
Not applicable
The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.
GPU turbo
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
∅
Not applicable
When the GPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.
GPU execution units
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
∅
Not applicable
A graphics processing unit (GPU) with a greater number of execution units can deliver better graphics.
supported displays
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
∅
Not applicable
Using multiple displays you can create a larger workspace, making it easier to work across multiple apps.
DirectX version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
∅
Not applicable
DirectX is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.
OpenGL version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
∅
Not applicable
OpenGL is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.
OpenCL version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 3600)
Some apps use OpenCL to apply the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing.
Newer versions introduce more functionality and better performance.
texture mapping units (TMUs)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
∅
Not applicable
TMUs take textures and map them to the geometry of a 3D scene. More TMUs will typically mean that texture information is processed faster.
render output units (ROPs)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
∅
Not applicable
The ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, writing the final pixel data to memory and carrying out other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the look of graphics.
Memory
RAM speed
1333MHz
3200MHz
It can support faster memory, which will give quicker system performance.
maximum memory bandwidth
21.
3GB/s
47.68GB/s
This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.
DDR memory version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
DDR (Double Data Rate) memory is the most common type of RAM. Newer versions of DDR memory support higher maximum speeds and are more energy-efficient.
memory channels
More memory channels increases the speed of data transfer between the memory and the CPU.
maximum memory amount
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
The maximum amount of memory (RAM) supported.
bus transfer rate
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 3600)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
Supports ECC memory
✖AMD Phenom II X4 975
✖AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.
eMMC version
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 3600)
A higher version of eMMC allows faster memory interfaces, having a positive effect on the performance of a device. For example, when transferring files from your computer to the internal storage over USB.
bus speed
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 3600)
The bus is responsible for transferring data between different components of a computer or device.
Features
uses multithreading
✖AMD Phenom II X4 975
✔AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Multithreading technology (such as Intel’s Hyperthreading or AMD’s Simultaneous Multithreading) provides increased performance by splitting each of the processor’s physical cores into virtual cores, also known as threads.
This way, each core can run two instruction streams at once.
Has AES
✖AMD Phenom II X4 975
✔AMD Ryzen 5 3600
AES is used to speed up encryption and decryption.
Has AVX
✖AMD Phenom II X4 975
✔AMD Ryzen 5 3600
AVX is used to help speed up calculations in multimedia, scientific and financial apps, as well as improving Linux RAID software performance.
SSE version
SSE is used to speed up multimedia tasks such as editing an image or adjusting audio volume. Each new version contains new instructions and improvements.
Has F16C
✖AMD Phenom II X4 975
✔AMD Ryzen 5 3600
F16C is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
bits executed at a time
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
Unknown.
Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 3600)
NEON provides acceleration for media processing, such as listening to MP3s.
Has MMX
✔AMD Phenom II X4 975
✔AMD Ryzen 5 3600
MMX is used to speed up tasks such as adjusting the contrast of an image or adjusting volume.
Has TrustZone
✖AMD Phenom II X4 975
✖AMD Ryzen 5 3600
A technology integrated into the processor to secure the device for use with features such as mobile payments and streaming video using digital rights management (DRM).
front-end width
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Phenom II X4 975)
Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Ryzen 5 3600)
The CPU can decode more instructions per clock (IPC), meaning that the CPU performs better
Price comparison
Which are the best CPUs?
Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition vs Core i9-10900KF
Availability
No items available
Availability
Intel Core i9-10900KF Desktop Processor 10 Cores up to 5.
3 GHz Unlocked Without Processor Graphics LGA1200 (Intel 400 Series chipset) 125W
Buy on Amazon
$413.99
In Stock
Updated 27 minutes ago
Key Differences
In short — Core i9-10900KF outperforms Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value.
Advantages of Intel Core i9-10900KF
- Performs up to 51% better in Fortnite than Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition — 318 vs 211 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than AMD Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition — 20 vs 4 threads
Fortnite
Resolution
1920×1080
Game Graphics
High
Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition
FPS
211
66%
Value, $/FPS
Price, $
Core i9-10900KF
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
FPS
318
100%
Value, $/FPS
$1.3/FPS
100%
Price, $
$413.99
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Intel Core i9-10900KF Desktop Processor 10 Cores up to 5.
3 GHz Unlocked Without Processor Graphics LGA1200 (Intel 400 Series chipset) 125W
Buy for $413.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 27 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920×1080
Game Graphics
High
Phenom II X4 975 Black EditionCore i9-10900KF
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
194
FPS
295
FPS
Grand Theft Auto V
340
FPS
513
FPS
VALORANT
794
FPS
1172
FPS
League of Legends
208
FPS
325
FPS
Apex Legends
211
FPS
318
FPS
Fortnite
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition
Single-Core
464
34%
Multi-Core
1552
14%
Core i9-10900KF
Desktop • Apr 30th, 2020
Single-Core
1377
100%
Multi-Core
10723
100%
|
AMD Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition |
vs |
Intel Core i9-10900KF |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | Release Date | Apr 30th, 2020 |
| Not Available | Collection | Core i9 |
| Deneb | Codename | Comet Lake |
| Not Available | Socket | Intel Socket 1200 |
| Segment |
Desktop |
|
| 4 | Cores |
10 |
| 4 | Threads |
20 |
3. 6 GHz |
Base Clock Speed |
3.7 GHz |
| Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 5.3 GHz |
| 125 W | TDP | 125 W |
| Not Available | Process Size | 14 nm |
| Not Available | Multiplier | 37.0x |
| None | Integrated Graphics | None |
| No | Overclockable |
Yes |
Builds Using Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition or Core i9-10900KF
Fortnite, 1080p, High
CLX Set Gaming Desktop PC
217
FPS
$
9.68
/FPS
GeForce RTX 3060 Ti
Core i9-10900KF
32 GB, 960 GB SSD + 4 TB HDD
Buy on Amazon
$2,099.99
In Stock
Updated 23 minutes ago
CLX Set — Liquid Cooled Intel Core i9 10900KF 3.
7Ghz 10-Core Processor, 64GB DDR4 Memory, GeForce RTX 3080 10GB GDDR6X Graphics, 1TB SSD, 6TB HDD, WiFi, Windows 10 Home 64-bit PC
265
FPS
$
9.81
/FPS
GeForce RTX 3080
Core i9-10900KF
64 GB, 1 TB SSD + 6 TB HDD
Buy on Amazon
$2,599.49
In Stock
Updated 21 minutes ago
CLX SET VR-Ready Gaming Desktop PC
265
FPS
$
9.7
/FPS
GeForce RTX 3080
Core i9-10900KF
32 GB, 960 GB SSD + 4 TB HDD
Buy on Amazon
$2,569.99
In Stock
Updated 22 minutes ago
MPG Velox by MSI Gaming Desktop PC
345
FPS
$
8.
12
/FPS
GeForce RTX 4080
Core i9-10900KF
32 GB, 512 GB SSD + 3 TB HDD
Buy on Amazon
$2,799.99
In Stock
Updated 22 minutes ago
Empowered PC
345
FPS
$
8.12
/FPS
GeForce RTX 4080
Core i9-10900KF
32 GB, 512 GB SSD + 2 TB HDD
Buy on Amazon
$2,799.99
In Stock
Updated 22 minutes ago
CLX Set Gaming Desktop PC
318
FPS
$
10.66
/FPS
GeForce RTX 3090
Core i9-10900KF
64 GB, 1 TB SSD + 6 TB HDD
Buy on Amazon
$3,389.99
In Stock
Updated 22 minutes ago
ASUS ROG Strix G35CZ Gaming Desktop PC
265
FPS
$
16.
98
/FPS
GeForce RTX 3080
Core i9-10900KF
32 GB, 1 TB SSD + 1 TB HDD
Buy on Amazon
$4,499.99
In Stock
Updated 23 minutes ago
MSI Aegis RS 10SE-011US High-End Full Tower Desktop PC
209
FPS
$
19.08
/FPS
GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER
Core i9-10900KF
32 GB, 1 TB SSD + 2 TB HDD
Buy on Amazon
$3,988
In Stock
Updated 23 minutes ago
Empowered PC
217
FPS
$
7.14
/FPS
GeForce RTX 3060 Ti
Core i9-10900KF
32 GB, 512 GB SSD + 2 TB HDD
Buy on Amazon
$1,549.
99
In Stock
Updated 21 minutes ago
Empowered PC
318
FPS
$
8.18
/FPS
GeForce RTX 3090
Core i9-10900KF
32 GB, 512 GB SSD + 2 TB HDD
Buy on Amazon
$2,599.99
In Stock
Updated 22 minutes ago
Select from the most popular similar processor comparisons. Most compared processor combinations, including the currently selected ones, are at the top.
Core i9-10900KF
$413.99
Ryzen 9 5900X
Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition
N/A Stock
Ryzen 9 5900X
Core i9-10900KF
$413.99
Ryzen 7 5800X3D
$345.5
Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition
N/A Stock
Ryzen 7 5800X3D
$345.5
Core i9-10900KF
$413.99
Core i7-13700K
$429.99
Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition
N/A Stock
Core i7-13700K
$429.
99
Core i9-10900KF
$413.99
Core i9-12900K
$424.95
Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition
N/A Stock
Core i9-12900K
$424.95
Core i9-10900KF
$413.99
Core i5-13600K
$319.98
AMD Phenom II X4 Processor Overview 975
Description
Specifications
| Release Year | 2011 |
| Segment | for desktop computers |
| Socket | Socket AM3 |
| Number of cores | 4 |
| Number of threads | 4 |
| Base frequency | 3600MHz |
| Turbo Core | — |
| L1/L2/L3 cache | 512Kb/2Mb/6Mb |
| Unlocked multiplier | yes |
| Architecture (core) | Deneb |
| Process | 45nm |
| Integrated video core | no |
Max. memory frequency |
DDR2 1066Mhz, DDR3 1333Mhz |
| TDP | 125W |
| Max. temperature | 62C |
| Windows 11 support | no |
Supported instructions: MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4A, AMD-V, Virtualization Technology
Supported operating systems: Windows XP, Vista, 7, 10 x86-x64, Linux x86-x64
Overview of the AMD Phenom II X4 975
processor The processor was released in 2011 for motherboards with the latest Socket AM3 connector for that time. The model belongs to the high-performance CPU in the line of processors created for the AM3 platform, has 4 cores with a frequency of 3600 MHz and a heat dissipation of 125W, which will require an efficient cooling system (140W+). AMD Phenom II X4 975 is made according to the technological standards of 45nm and carries the Deneb architecture. At the time of entering the market and the next 5-7 years, this processor was considered a worthy gaming option, offering good performance and good overclocking potential.
As of 2020, the AMD Phenom II X4 975 combined with a fairly powerful graphics card (Radeon RX470, GeForce GTX960 and above), at least 8 GB of RAM and low graphics settings is still able to provide minimum acceptable performance (25-30 frames) even in the most modern projects of the level of Red Dead Redemption 2. In older games like GTA V and Tomb Raider 2013, AMD Phenom II X4 975 will provide a comfortable number of frames per second at medium graphics settings. This CPU can easily cope with office tasks, providing comfortable work in standard Windows and Office applications, surfing the Internet.
AMD Phenom II X4 performance comparison table 975
competitor models:
| Positioning | CPU Model | PassMark | |||
| Test piece | AMD Phenom II X4 975 | 2479 points | |||
| Junior model | AMD Phenom II X4 970 | 2643 points | |||
| Older model | AMD Phenom II X4 980 | 2829 points | |||
There are still a few months left before their release, but these chips are waiting in a way that no one has been waiting for for a long time. Many believe that AMD will be able to make a real breakthrough and return to the high-performance mainstream CPU market, where Intel has long dominated almost unconditionally. Especially since fate recently played a cruel joke on the latter, and the triumphant start of the new architecture turned out to be something like a false start: a bug was discovered in the chipsets for this processor family, which led to their recall. Of course, in the long run this will not change anything significantly (and in some cases “defective” chips can be used, so not everyone will change them), but the distribution of the new platform will certainly delay, which works in favor of the competitor. The main thing — «do not jinx it.» 
Optimists may object that the score in this game is still in AMD’s favor, since the Athlon (K7) and Athlon 64 (K8) released within the equally tough time pressure turned out to be very successful processors, however … It took them a long time to demonstrate their heroic strength 🙂 Athlon had to go through a design change and change the core and a couple of technical processes before it really shined. And the first Athlon 64s only caught up, but did not overtake the competitors from the Intel camp — and only when the latter ruined her own life, trying (in Prescott) at the same time to master the process 90 nm, and tweak the architecture, it became possible to talk about the unequivocal advantage of the AMD product (by the way, it also managed to change the socket by that time, by tradition). From this point of view, Phenom was not so unsuccessful either: after changing the manufacturing process and redesigning the chip, it turned out to be a good processor. But not at once. In general, Bulldozer also runs the risk of being a good processor, but not good enough, given the advances given to it.
After that, as often happens, its most active supporters are the first to migrate to the camp of opponents — unsatisfied expectations often do other things to people. 
Phenom II X6 1100T appeared at the end of last year, Phenom II X4 975 — at the very beginning of this year, but both of them were a bit late for our last test of high-performance processors (dedicated, as you might guess, to the debut of the LGA1155 platform). Thus, we will get acquainted with their performance today. But not only with it — in the end, an increase in the clock frequency by only 100 MHz cannot give any «wonderful discoveries», so we decided to make the article more interesting, including for those who plan to purchase some other than those indicated CPU. And for this we didn’t have to go to any extreme measures, such as using liquid nitrogen (and indeed anything liquid): an ordinary high-quality cooler, increasing the voltage of the cores by about 0, 2V and NB to 1.
4V and that’s it. There is even a suspicion that stability would have been preserved even at lower voltages, but we didn’t carry out too deep a check — it’s not our topic (and, in the end, only running a large amount of complex software, and not so popular in everyday life, can give full confidence only stress tests or games). But in general, it is clear that the once-targeted frequency of 4 GHz is not unattainable. However, in order for such frequencies to become commonplace for mass-produced processors (with manufacturer-guaranteed performance), a lot of work needs to be done. In the meantime, AMD is increasing the frequencies in small steps, which, frankly, is somewhat insufficient.
4 × 512
0 9000 9000 2.0
9000
9000 9000 AM3 AM3 AM3 AM3 AM3 AM3 AM3 AM3 AM3 AM3 AM3
The main heroes of today’s article will certainly be AMD processors, and, as usual with such updates to the model range, a direct comparison of the results in pairs 970-975 and 1090T-1100T is mandatory. By the way, we tested the 1090T a long time ago — there is a hope that since then the motherboard manufacturers have «twisted» their firmware, so that we will be able to see super-linear growth. But we can see that it is not up to linear: after all, the performance of the memory subsystem has not changed, so where it is important, an increase in the clock frequency of the cores begins to have less and less importance.
8.5
4/8 90 090 10
4 × 256
0 8
| System board | RAM | |
| LGA1155 | GIGABYTE P67A-UD5 (P67) | KVR133D3N9K3/6G (2 × 1333; 9-9; 9-9; 9—9-24) |
| LGA1156 | GIGABYTE P55A-UD6 (P55) | KINGSTON KVR133N9K3/6G (2 × 1333; 9-9-24) | Crucial Ballistix BL2KIT25664AA80A (2 × 1066, 5-5-5-15-2T) |
| AM3 | GIGABYTE 890FXA-UD7 (AMD 890FX) | CORSAIR CM3X2G1600 -20-1T, Unganged Mode) |
Although we planned to completely abandon the use of DDR2 memory in tests, we decided to make an exception for LGA775. First, we have already established that the use of DDR3 only reduces the results of processors for this platform. Secondly, although the prices of these types of memory have already become equal, few people will now purchase a «middle class» system based on LGA775. The results of these processors are most interesting to those who either already have a computer on one of them and are considering switching to another platform, or those who are planning to upgrade from a slower Core 2.
Well, in both of these cases, DDR2 memory is most likely to be used. in the «starter» system, so we chose it for the test bench.
Testing
Processor performance testing methodology (list of software used and testing conditions) is described in detail in a separate article. For ease of perception, the results on the diagrams are presented in percentages (the result of AMD Athlon II X4 620 is taken as 100% in each of the tests). Detailed results in absolute terms are available as a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel format.
3D-visualization
In this traditionally low-threaded group, the Core i5-2300 turned out to be the fastest, which was no doubt at first 🙂 Phenom II X4 is faster than Phenom II X6 due to the higher frequency, which is also not surprising. More importantly, due to its increase 9The 75 managed to overtake the i5-760 (which was at the level of 970) and get closer to the i7-870. Yes, and 1100T received a good increase, which allowed him to keep up with the i5-760.
However, we repeat once again, visualization is a low-threaded task, so it is not capable of “loading” four- and, especially, six-core processors with work.
3D rendering
What can not be said about the final miscalculation! Phenom II X6 processors, of course, still “do not reach” the level of Core i7, but they easily bypass Core i5 without straining. The Phenom II X4 is not capable of such feats, but still not bad — the first models could hardly compete with the Core 2 Quad, and now it is not a rival for them at all (at comparable prices).
Scientific and engineering calculations
Again we return to the sinful low-flow earth, so the results are very similar to those obtained in the first group. True, there is one multi-threaded subtest here, which allows the Phenom II X6 to «keep up» with the Phenom II X4, but it is not enough to keep up with the Core i5-2300. However, even the Core i7-870 fails to do this, which, nevertheless, «climbed» to second place.
Graphic editors
There is some benefit from increasing the number of computation threads, but mainly due to Adobe Photoshop, which has some (but far from complete) optimization. The position of today’s main heroes is traditional: a slight increase in clock frequency slightly increases performance compared to its predecessors (the reverse would be strange), but does not radically change the overall balance of power.
Archivers
The same can be said about this group. However, with one exception: as you can see, earlier all AMD processors lagged behind the Core i5-760 here, but now the Phenom II X6 1100T managed to overtake it. But that’s all — the Core i5-2300, despite the same clock speed and reduced cache capacity, remains out of reach.
Compilation
Here, the number of computational threads (or better, physical cores), cache memory capacity, and clock frequency are already important, so Phenom II X4 975 is able to outperform the Core i5-2300, and the Phenom II X6 1100T is only slightly behind the Core i7-870 (while the previous model with the 1090T index was only on par with the slower Core i7-860).
Java
The test preferences are almost the same except for the cache memory, and the Java machine has always been good with the AMD processor architecture, but this does not help much in competition with processors with the Sandy Bridge architecture. However, the 1100T at least outperforms all Core i5s, including the new ones (but 1090T lagged behind the Core i5-2500). Well, against the background of old (not to mention «very» old) Intel processors, all the older Phenom II look very good.
Internet browsers
Previously, Phenom II X4 were the best in this group, then they had to give way to older models under LGA1155, but the new 975 turned out to be extremely close to them. There is nothing to say about Intel processors based on older architectures. Although, in general, as we have said more than once, the results of these tests for all processors, except for the most budget modifications, are not so important — they all do the job quite quickly, and the difference between browsers far overlaps the difference between even the fastest and slowest processors.
Audio encoding
The frontal approach to parallelization (we run simultaneous encoding of such a number of files that corresponds to the number of hardware supported computation threads) leads to the fact that all processors are divided into three groups: performing 8, 6 and 4 computation threads, and almost no matter how many physical cores there are. The only exception is Sandy Bridge, however, since we took the youngest quad-core model, it could not spoil the general trend for us very much 🙂 The most curious result here is, perhaps, the result of the Core 2 Quad Q9500 is its finest hour: it managed to stay at the level of the Core i5-760 and Phenom II X4 970. So it is very possible that the increased efficiency of Sandy Bridge is due to the fact that Turbo Boost 2.0 began to work adequately in this group of applications, which could not wait from the previous version of the technology.
Video encoding
But these applications already «decide» how much resources to use, so the Phenom II X6 is quite capable of competing with the old Core i7.
The new ones (more precisely, the «new» — i7-2600 is still one, albeit in two modifications) are faster, however, we tend to regard this result positively. But the increase itself is small, which led to a curious effect — Phenom II X4 970 and 975 (which also outperformed their former competitor in the face of the Core i5-760) showed … the same overall result. However, nothing surprising: the increase in clock frequency was less than 3%, the increase in performance, respectively, is also no more than 3% in the most ideal case. Now we take into account the inevitable measurement error, the rules of rounding and averaging, etc. In general, what are we talking about? Moreover, the step of 100 MHz between neighboring models is actually too small. Even if they ask for only a couple of dollars “on top”, there is reason to doubt the expediency of overpaying, but AMD wants as much as $ 20 in bulk. So decide after that — is there any point in paying so much, if even in tests it is sometimes impossible to see the difference between neighboring models, and even between the more distant ones in the price list, it is not always noticeable.
In tests. In practical use, even more so.
Games
Traditionally boring section 🙂 All modern processors differ little from each other in terms of gaming performance, so we can talk about something only when studying their budget (less than $100) modifications. Of course, one can object that the Radeon HD 5870 (which we use in tests) is no longer the fastest solution on the market, so if you take something more powerful, and even lower the resolution and worsen the image quality, the difference will be more pronounced. embossed, however … Most are still interested in the gameplay, and not the pursuit of abstract numbers. Monitors with Full HD resolution and even higher are now cheap, so the 1680×1050 pixels we chose can be considered insufficient, not excessive. Video cards with lower performance are not only present in mass quantities in users’ computers, but are also sold, and even developed now (and will continue in the near future). In general, we can once again repeat that in the first place for a gaming computer (if we talk about 3D games, of course, and not about browser-based online) is a video card.
The second one is the video card. And on the third is also a video card. Especially if you already have a processor that costs $200, even if it’s not new.
Total
In the final table of ranks, four AMD processors lined up as expected from the point of view of everyday everyday logic and common sense beat the Core i5-2300 as well: a pyrrhic victory, but still. More importantly, in tests where the potential capabilities of multi-core processors are fully used, the new top AMD is able to compete with the Core i7 of the «old» architecture (for LGA1366 and LGA1156). What’s more, the Phenom II X6 1100T can even outperform the Core i7-870 in at least two groups. But we, perhaps, will not rush to rejoice at this fact, as well as the greater potential flexibility of AM3: the possibility of using multi-core processors with integrated graphics; «full-fledged» PCIe 2.0 not only for video cards, but also for peripherals; the availability of boards with a couple of slots for video cards with a «full» x16 width (mainly, of course, designed to support several video cards based on AMD chips, but for aesthetes, there are also products on sale based on NVIDIA chipsets that support SLI, and sometimes Triple-SLI) .
All this is true. However, in terms of processor performance, this beauty is negated by the fact that the Core i7-870 is far from the fastest Intel processor: in addition to it, there are also 2600, 880, 960, 970, 980X and 990X in the line. It can be argued that all but the first belong to completely different price classes. However, the causal relationship here is different: they cost so much because they have no one to compete with. Simply because the Phenom II X6 1100T is AMD’s fastest desktop processor, and all of the six (some of which predated even any six-core AMD processors) were faster. Therefore, a buyer who is not satisfied with the performance level of the junior Core i7 and the older Phenom II X6 simply has nowhere to go — he can choose either one Intel processor or … another Intel processor. And it is impossible to radically change this situation by adding 100 MHz every six months. We need new, significantly faster AMD processors! And everyone needs it, including fans of Intel products, and, by and large, this company itself too.
As for our out-of-competition hero in the form of the Core 2 Quad Q9500, its results speak for themselves: it is about 15% slower than the Core i5-760, and 25% slower than the Core i5-2300, although the starting clock speeds of these processors are similar. Here you can evaluate them in different ways 🙂 On the one hand, it’s not so bad, on the other hand, it’s not even the cheapest out of this trio. Of course, pricing is in the hands of the manufacturer, which can specifically reduce the attractiveness of old processors in order to promote new ones, but the cost of Core 2 Quad is objectively high. (If only because of a few megabytes of full-speed L2 cache: in 760 L3 operates at a lower frequency, while 2300 is manufactured using a finer process, which positively affects the cost of production.) Of course, Q9500 is not the fastest member of the family, but it is also far from the slowest: there are actually only two models above it in the «table of ranks» (moreover, the performance of one of them, as we already established a year ago, is literally 2-3% higher), but below — as many as three representatives of the Q9000 line and another three Q8000.
