home Pregnancy and children Processors. Processors Software and Test Setup

Processors. Processors Software and Test Setup

Flaws

If only he had a TDP 95W it would be a fairy taleA comment

After the athlon x2 4400+, this is a mega-rocket! The computer in general has become much faster, in games like crisis the jerks have stopped - everything is smooth and smooth =) In general, I’m happy as an elephant!

25 1

good quality

Flaws A comment

If you are looking for a processor and reading tests about how Intel is more productive than AMD in applications such as (ZD mark or benchmark and other nonsense), then most likely you are a professional video editor or something else and your computer is your professional tool. Then you are in a different sandbox and you need a different processor (8 core or 20 core or 30 core). And if you have the same problems as me (described above), then don’t look at these synthetic tests, designed for a narrow circle of people (professionals) and narrow-minded people who buy Formula 1 but at the same time drive at a speed of 60 km.. Take it and don’t don't worry at all!!! And if you think that for the tasks that I described above, a 3-4 year old processor is considered old, then you are very mistaken. On the fm 2 socket, which is “like the latest development,” the core is generally cut down, only the video core was added, and in everything else it is inferior to the phenom 2.

Complain Was the review helpful? 11 1

[email protected]

Flaws

- hot at a maximum permissible temperature of 62 degrees, so for maximum overclocking you will need a powerful cooler (such as CoolerMaster V8);A comment

Bought to replace Q9450(3.7)+P45, as a result, using AMD Fusion and overclocking all components in 3d Mark06 increase from 16900 to 17953 (despite the fact that in the second case the GTX 260 video card was overclocked to 650 core, and in the first up to 700).
It is recommended to purchase (instead of the same Phenom II 945) if you don’t want to bother with overclocking for a long time.

Complain Was the review helpful? 30 18

special problems

Flaws

PeeeeeA comment

I am quite pleased with the purchase, I don’t see the point in buying expensive Intel if there is no need for it. The stone is good

"Demand creates supply", - this truth is as old as time! In the computer field, this is more true than anywhere else. Most people who want to buy a personal computer are doing this for the first time; their only desire is an affordable price and a stylish appearance, as well as compliance with minimum multimedia requirements, such as: “playing DVDs, listening to music, working with office applications and, less often, working on the Internet” . Users who, if necessary, upgrade their computer to a more productive model, already have some knowledge of the structure of a computer, and accordingly select its “equipment” based on clearly defined requirements, i.e. in most cases, they form a set of components themselves. They often include: a TV-tuner, a “gaming” video card, an alternative processor cooling system, as well as a specialized case. But there are also “inveterate” fans who assemble their own computer using rare, exclusive components. As a rule, such components have an appropriate price. It is unacceptable to discuss the appropriateness of such purchases, since everyone is free to manage their finances in accordance with their desires. Thus, if a client is an “avid” fan of games and wants to purchase a hi-end video card, then only its absence on sale can stop him. Today we will talk about just such a hi-end offer, this is the most productive “heart” of the most powerful desktop computer from AMD to date. Meet the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition processor.

Appearance of packaging

The highest performing offering should have every possible advantage. One of them is the “crowned title” Black Edition, which implies a free multiplier. According to AMD tradition, a processor belonging to the elite Black Edition category is supplied in a “boxed” version, decorated in a strictly black tone. There are no bright flashy emblems or logos, since a true high-performance solution does not need advertising. After all, it is demand that generates supply, not supply that generates demand.

In the upper left corner of the front side of the package there is an information “blue square”, on which, according to the manufacturer, the main advantages of the model are displayed. This is a Phenom II X4 generation processor operating at a clock frequency of 3.2 GHz (and higher), has four processing cores, has only 8 MB of cache memory and is designed for the Socket AM3 processor socket.

Looking at the contents of the package, we were able to discover the following components:

Phenom processor II X4 955 Black Edition;
Cooler AV-Z7UH40Q001-1509;
Installation instructions and three-year warranty;
Sticker on the body.

Even after a quick inspection of the supplied cooler AV-Z7UH40Q001-1509, all negative feelings disappeared.

A high-tech model is offered that uses heat transfer technology from the processor cover to the radiator fins using heat pipes. This is not the “dwarf” that all “stripped-down” models of the Phenom II family are equipped with, but more about it a little later, so as not to spoil the impression for now.

So we got to the heat distribution cover of the processor, from which we can read a lot of useful information encrypted in its markings, represented by the alphanumeric combination HDZ955FBK4DGI, which can be deciphered as:

HD – AMD K10.5 architecture processor for workstations;
Z – processor with a free multiplier;
955 – model number indicating the family (first digit) and the position of the model within the family (the remaining digits - the higher the number, the higher the operating clock frequency);
FB – processor thermal package up to 125 W with a supply voltage in the range of 0.875 – 1.5 V;
K – the processor is packaged in a 938 pin OµPGA (Socket AM3) case;
4 – total active cores and, accordingly, the volume of second-level cache memory is 4x 512 KB;
DGI - Deneb core (45 nm) C2 stepping.

It is also worth paying attention to the place of production of the processor - this is Malaysia.

The reverse interface side of the processor has a 938-pin package. This is Socket AM3. Let us remember that it is backward compatible with the AM2+ connector, and the memory controller built into the processor can work with DDR2 and DDR3 memory.

Specification:


Marking
CPU socket
Clock frequency, MHz
Factor	16 (starting)
HT bus frequency, MHz
L1 cache size, KB
L2 cache size, KB
L3 cache size, KB

Number of Cores
Instructions support	MMX, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4A, x86-64
Supply voltage, V
Thermal package, W
Critical temperature, °C
Technical process, nm
Technology support	Cool'n'Quiet 3.0 Enhanced Virus Protection Virtualization Technology Core C1 and C1E states Package S0, S1, S3, S4 and S5 states

Considering the characteristics of the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition, I would like to note that the safe voltage range, according to AMD, is not limited to 1.3 V or 1.425 V, as in cheaper models of the Phenon II family or junior models of the “full” line, but is expanded to 1.5 V, which will undoubtedly give confidence in terms of overclocking. However, the maximum safe temperature, according to the manufacturer, is underestimated and is only 62 °C, while for dual-core models of the Phenon II family it is 73 °C or 71 °C for tri-core models. This is due to the fact that “full-fledged” models use all existing Deneb crystal blocks, and as a result, they all heat up, which in total can lead to overheating and subsequent failure. It is possible to prevent such a course of events with the help of a good, effective cooling system, because when buying the most productive processor from AMD, it would be stupid not to take care of its cooling.

A screenshot of the CPU-Z program fully confirms these specifications.

The memory used worked at “lower” frequencies relative to its capabilities. This is due to the limitations of the memory controller built into the processor.

During testing we used Processor Test Stand No. 1

Motherboards (AMD)	ASUS M3A32-MVP DELUXE (AMD 790FX, sAM2+, DDR2, ATX)GIGABYTE GA-MA790XT-UD4P (AMD 790X, sAM3, DDR3, ATX)
Motherboards (AMD)	ASUS F1A75-V PRO (AMD A75, sFM1, DDR3, ATX)ASUS SABERTOOTH 990FX (AMD 990FX, sAM3+, DDR3, ATX)
Motherboards (Intel)	GIGABYTE GA-EP45-UD3P (Intel P45, LGA 775, DDR2, ATX)GIGABYTE GA-EX58-DS4 (Intel X58, LGA 1366, DDR3, ATX)
Motherboards (Intel)	ASUS Maximus III Formula (Intel P55, LGA 1156, DDR3, ATX)MSI H57M-ED65 (Intel H57, LGA 1156, DDR3, mATX)
Motherboards (Intel)	ASUS P8Z68-V PRO (Intel Z68, sLGA1155, DDR3, ATX)ASUS P9X79 PRO (Intel X79, sLGA2011, DDR3, ATX)
Coolers	Noctua NH-U12P + LGA1366 KitScythe Kama Angle rev.B (LGA 1156/1366)ZALMAN CNPS12X (LGA 2011)
RAM	2x DDR2-1200 1024 MB Kingston HyperX KHX9600D2K2/2G2/3x DDR3-2000 1024 MB Kingston HyperX KHX16000D3T1K3/3GX
Video cards	EVGA e-GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB GDDR3 PCI-EASUS EN9800GX2/G/2DI/1G GeForce 9800 GX2 1GB GDDR3 PCI-E 2.0
HDD	Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 ST3500418AS, 500 GB, SATA-300, NCQ
power unit	Seasonic SS-650JT, 650 W, Active PFC, 80 PLUS, 120 mm fan

Choose what you want to compare the AMD Phenom II X4 955 with

Well, no miracle happened. A representative of rival Intel's advanced Nehalem family, equivalent to the desktop Core i7 920 processor, it still turned out to be faster, both in synthetic tests and in most games. However, even considering that the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition is the most expensive offering, it will still be more profitable than the most affordable Core i7 920, which largely equalizes their status in the market. But in comparison with representatives of the previous generation Core 2 Quad Q9550 and Core 2 Duo E8600, the “top” processor Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition demonstrated a higher level of performance in almost all cases. Well, in comparison with the once “top” AMD Phenom II X4 940, oriented only for the AM2+ platform, the performance increase turned out to be absolutely proportional to the increased frequency of 200 MHz. However, to be confident in this judgment, a comparison was made of the capabilities of the tested processor when using DDR3 and DDR2 memory.

Efficiency of using DDR3

Test package		Result	Decrease in productivity, %
Test package			Decrease in productivity, %



	Rendering, CB-CPU





	DirectX 9, High, fps
	DirectX 10, Very High, fps

The average productivity drop was 4.17%. Considering the almost leveled prices for DDR2 and DDR3 memory, we can say that the use DDR memory 2 with the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition processor is still an irrational move, because this processor currently represents the most productive solution from AMD and saving a few dollars is not worth the almost 5% loss in overall performance.

Brief review of the cooler AV-Z7UH40Q001-1509

Honestly, the cooler that comes with the most expensive processor should match it. This is exactly what happened, take a look for yourself!

Four heat-conducting tubes pierce the radiator fins with different sides. Moreover, the radiator fins themselves do not “hang” in the air, but are also attached to the base of the cooler.

The base itself is far from shallow and extends almost twice as far beyond the heat distribution cover of the processor. The “native” thermal interface is applied to the base.

Looking at the structure of the cooler, or rather the method of fastening, one gets the impression that it is almost “handmade”. Four heat-conducting tubes are soldered to the copper plate, which acts as the base, as in “thoroughbred” models of specialized cooling systems. And the radiator fins are soldered directly to the same tubes. Those. The heat removal process begins already at the first stage of heating the base. The same heat-conducting tubes effectively transfer heat to the top of the radiator fins, thereby increasing their efficiency. By the way, heat-conducting tubes are also soldered in the upper part, which improves thermal conductivity.

As for the fan, all modern methods are used here, which are rarely found even in alternative models. Firstly, the fan has a PWM (PWM) converter, which makes it possible to economically regulate the rotation speed of the impeller over a wide speed range. Secondly, the fan has own temperature sensor, according to the readings of which the speed of rotation of the impeller is also adjusted. A similar technology was discussed on our website in the review of the VIZO Freezer ZF12025 fan.

Having its own thermal sensor, the fan independently changed the rotation speed from 1470 rpm to 1740 rpm depending on the temperature of the air passing through it.

In fact, the rotation speed of the impeller of a “boxed” cooler is determined by two parameters: the readings of the motherboard and the value of the temperature sensor. The most interesting thing is that their values add up. That is, if the motherboard sets the maximum value of the rotation speed and the temperature of the air passing through the fan causes the temperature sensor to also send the maximum signal, then only then will we get maximum speed rotation of the impeller. But if one of the control voltages (for example, a motherboard signal) is minimal, and the second (for example, the temperature sensor value) maximum, then as a result we get half fan impeller rotation speed.

Efficiency of a boxed cooler

Testing was carried out using a familiar method. For a more adequate idea of the efficiency of the “boxed” cooler AV-Z7UH40Q001-1509, it was assigned an opponent Scythe Kama Angle, which has proven itself more than once as a highly efficient and quiet cooler. Energy saving technologies C1E and Cool`n`Quiet have been disabled to prevent distortion of the results. The functions of intelligent control of the speed of rotation of the fan impeller were also disabled, i.e. The “boxed” cooler was instructed by the motherboard to operate at maximum speed, but the fan’s own thermal sensor made its own adjustments. The Scythe Kama Angle cooler worked with its own “native” fan, the impeller rotation speed of which was 1200 rpm. The energy consumption of the system was measured as a whole from a ~220 V outlet.

Cooler type	Processor temperature, C	Total system consumption, W
Box cooler	42 (4800 rpm)
Box cooler	57 (5600 rpm)
Scythe Kama Angle
Scythe Kama Angle

The first thing that catches your eye is the fan speed of the “boxed” cooler. “Monsters” that operate above 3000 rpm have not been seen for a long time. At startup, when the entire system was cold ( room temperature), the rotation speed of the “boxed” cooler impeller was 3500 rpm. The noise level created at such speeds was acceptable, but close to system unit he could be heard clearly. When reaching 4800 rpm. the noise was heard at a distance of two meters ( workplace), however, it was also the noise of the air being cut by the fan blades. When the processor was loaded, the latter naturally heated up, and with it the air passing through the cooler. The temperature sensor, focusing on the temperature of the passing air, ensured an increase in the rotation speed of the cooler impeller. The maximum recorded value was 5600 rpm, while the noise of the air cut by the blades was also added to the hum of the engine. Moreover, the engine hum was both low-frequency and high-frequency, which was significantly annoying. This mode of operation cannot even be called acoustically comfortable.

However, in terms of heat dissipation, the “boxed” cooler showed pretty decent results. The six degree difference compared to the high performance Scythe Kama Angle is, to some extent, a feat for a “boxed” cooler. However, it is worth noting that in terms of energy efficiency, the “boxed” cooler lost significantly to the Scythe Kama Angle. The system, the heart of which is the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition processor, cannot be called economical. And there is nothing surprising here, because the processor is the most high-performance. In any case, when using it, you should stock up on a powerful power supply and choose a motherboard with a powerful processor power supply, as well as an 8-pin ATX12V connector.

Overclocking

Before starting to “tighten the voltage knobs,” it was decided to try to increase only the multiplier. After all, the “title” Black Edition involves “simple” overclocking by increasing the multiplier. All other parameters were set by default by the motherboard, including the processor supply voltage.

Stable operation of the processor was recorded at a clock frequency of 3716 MHz. What amounted 16%. Such a small increase was due to the fact that the processor itself has fairly high “native” characteristics. And the motherboard supplies only 1.344 V to the core.

Cooler type	Processor temperature, C	Total system power consumption, W
Box cooler	44 (4800 rpm)
Box cooler	60 (6000 rpm)
Scythe Kama Angle
Scythe Kama Angle

The increase in heating during overclocking without raising the voltage turned out to be relatively small. But! Do not forget that the processor, according to the manufacturer, has a maximum heating limit of 62 °C. As can be seen from the table, the “boxed” cooler has already reached the limit of its capabilities, despite the fact that the thermal sensor built into the fan increased the rotation speed of the impeller to a catastrophic 6000 rpm. The level of noise and hum increased even more. Scythe Kama Angle, when overclocking the processor without raising the voltage, was able to maintain the temperature at 53 °C.

System power consumption increased by 18 watts when using both coolers and amounted to 297 and 303 watts, respectively. Such a “gluttonous” processor will be a serious test for the processor’s power supply system, so you should not save when buying a motherboard, especially if you overclock it.

When starting to overclock the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition processor by raising the voltage, there was no particular hope of increasing the clock frequency during stable operation, since processors of the Phenom II family similar to the one under consideration reached the overclocking limit of around 3800 MHz. But, nevertheless, an attempt had to be made.

Stable operation was achieved at a clock frequency of 3857 MHz. As a percentage relative to the starting clock frequency, this is + 21%. At the same time, the voltage increased by only 0.048 V and amounted to 1.392 V. With a further increase in voltage and clock frequency, stable operation could not be achieved.

Naturally, increasing the voltage increased the heat dissipation of the processor; the “boxed” cooler, which reached its limit even during overclocking without increasing the voltage, became an outsider and was unable to ensure stable operation of the system. Yes, the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition is indeed not only the most powerful processor from AMD, but also the hottest. And during overclocking, even the most “gluttonous” one - power consumption increased by another 27 watts! When operating the processor in this mode, you will need to monitor the temperature of the processor power system. Not every motherboard can withstand such loads for a long time.

Test package		Result		Productivity gain, %
Test package		Rated frequency	Overclocked processor	Productivity gain, %
	Rendering, CB-CPU

Fritz Chess Benchmark v.4.2, knodes/s


Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. Demo, High, 1280x1024, AA2x
	DirectX 9, High, fps
	DirectX 10, Very High, fps

Comparing the performance gain of the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition processor in nominal mode and in overclocked mode, there was no hope of seeing anything colossal. After all, even at nominal frequencies the processor is highly productive today. And so it happened, the average increase during overclocking with increasing voltage was only 13%. But for tasks that require absolutely maximum processor performance, this performance increase will come in handy, since a more productive model from AMD simply does not exist today.

conclusions

Based on the test results, we can immediately say that the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition processor is the highest-performance solution from AMD. Compared to the previous generation of Intel Core 2 Quad processors, it shows higher performance at a similar price. This processor also has a free multiplier, which ensures fast and easy overclocking. Well, the included cooler, which is capable of providing an acceptable temperature regime for the processor even in an overclocked state (without raising the voltage), can also be considered a “plus”. However, in this case you will have to sacrifice acoustic comfort. Based on the above, the conclusion suggests itself that the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition processor can be considered as a guaranteed highest-performance solution. A system based on it can serve as both a powerful gaming station and a server. entry level. It should be remembered that such a system will be far from cheap, since this processor requires a high-quality motherboard, which includes a powerful CPU power supply system, as well as a powerful power supply and, quite possibly, an effective cooler. As for the housing for such a system, it is highly desirable that it be well ventilated.

Old discounted versus new cheap

We have already mentioned more than once the sale of processors of previous generations organized by AMD. So many times that there was reason to think: why don’t we have exact results for either of the two Phenom II X4s, which in the current conditions look like almost the best offers on the budget product market? Yes, of course, we have already tested the extreme ones in the 910 and 980 family, and it’s easy to estimate the performance of any intermediate model (including 955 or 965) using approximation, but many readers are simply too lazy to do it. And then: approximation by two points is an extremely unreliable thing. It would be advisable to add a third, which we recently did for a couple of Athlon II families, and now we’ll move on to the Phenom II.

But there will be no completely new AMD processors in testing. But from Intel we will take a couple of models that appeared not so long ago, which, however, are also part of long-studied families. In short, today we have the usual routine testing of five processors on our agenda. Not for the purpose of any scientific discoveries, but to clarify existing information.

Test bench configuration

CPU	Phenom II X4 955	Phenom II X4 960T	Phenom II X6 1075T
Kernel name	Deneb	Zosma	Thuban
Production technology	45 nm	45 nm	45 nm
Core frequency std/max, GHz	3,2	3,0/3,4	3,0/3,5
	4/4	4/4	6/6
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB	256/256	256/256	384/384
L2 cache, KB	4×512	4×512	6×512
L3 cache, MiB	6	6	6
UnCore frequency, GHz	2	2	2
RAM	2×DDR3-1333	2×DDR3-1333	2×DDR3-1333
Video core	-	-	-
Socket	AM3	AM3	AM3
TDP	125 W	95 W	125 W
Price	N/A(0)	N/A(0)	N/A(0)

So, three AMD Phenom II processors. Everything has been said above about the 955 - its wholesale price since the fall is only $81, so until old stocks are exhausted, this processor is very competitive. More precisely, other models in this price class are not very competitive, with the exception, perhaps, of the no less “sale” A6-3670K, where the weaker processor part is compensated by good graphics. But the buyer of a discrete video card is not interested in it, which makes the Phenom II X4 955 practically no alternative within the AMD range. Intel, for the money, only has dual-core Pentiums - older models, of course, but even an older Pentium is just a Pentium: two computation threads are no longer enough for many modern applications (including gaming ones). But more than four are not necessary.

We need one more processor, namely the Phenom II X6 1075T, primarily for the reason mentioned above (but there are others, which are discussed below) - this is the third point of approximation for the Phenom II X6. And the Phenom II X4 960T is interesting in its own right. The processor is based on, in fact, the same Thuban, but two cores in Zosma are initially locked. As a result, this OEM model was at one time extremely popular among those who liked to take risks: if successful, they got a cheaper Phenom II X6 than if they bought it initially. True, the probability of success was far from 100%; this processor was sold at retail in small quantities, and inexpensive six-core processors (such as 1035T/1055T) greatly undermined the idea of saving money - why risk it for just 50 dollars? To be fair, our copy was unlocked without any problems - just changing one item in UEFI Setup was enough. But we still won’t say that there are no problems at all: the processor was not tested in this mode. Yes, this is not very interesting: unlocking a pair of cores turns the 960T into an almost complete analogue of the 1075T - only the frequency in turbo mode is 100 MHz lower. But its performance in normal mode is very interesting to us: a priori we can assume that when all four cores are loaded, it should be slightly lower than that of the 955, and in low-threaded applications - at the level of 965. In any case, this is how the frequencies of these processors correlate. Let's see how much practice confirms the theory. And AMD’s six-core capability itself is now rarely of practical importance, be it innate or “unlocked”: Thuban processors in Lately AMD's product range is present only nominally, and it is extremely difficult to find them in retail. And the model range has not been updated for a long time, so having the results of three models (previously tested 1035T and 1100T and today's 1075T), you can determine the performance of any other with fairly high accuracy using approximation by clock frequencies.

CPU	Pentium G2120	Core i3-3220	Core i5-3330
Kernel name	Ivy Bridge DC	Ivy Bridge DC	Ivy Bridge QC
Production technology	22 nm	22 nm	22 nm
Core frequency std/max, GHz	3,1	3,3	3,0/3,2
Number of cores/threads	2/2	2/4	4/4
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB	64/64	64/64	128/128
L2 cache, KB	2×256	2×256	4×256
L3 cache, MiB	3	3	6
UnCore frequency, GHz	3,1	3,3	3,0/3,2
RAM	2×DDR3-1600	2×DDR3-1600	2×DDR3-1600
Video core	HDG	HDG 2500	HDG 2500
Socket	LGA1155	LGA1155	LGA1155
TDP	55 W	55 W	77 W
Price	N/A()	$149()	$219()

Initially, we did not plan to include previously tested processors in the list of today's participants, but we decided to make an exception for the Pentium G2120. For two reasons. Firstly, the other two Intel processors in today's conditions are not direct competitors of the Phenom II X4 955 in price, but the Pentium somehow can. Secondly, on this moment This is the youngest Ivy Bridge “by far,” so it’s interesting to compare it with the younger Core i3 and the younger Core i5 on the same architecture. As for the i3-3220, there is nothing special about it - we have already tested its older brother (3240), and these processors differ only in clock frequency, and only by 100 MHz.

The release of the Core i5-3330 was somewhat unexpected. It would seem that the lower price level was clearly fixed at $184 wholesale in the summer - when the Core i5-3470 replaced the older i5-3450. And then suddenly Intel releases three cheaper Core i5s! The 3350P model does not raise any special questions - as can be seen from the index, the video core is blocked here. Most likely, this is simply the disposal of a “total waste” in the video part. But only $177 dollars wholesale, both in OEM supplies and in retail packaging, plus a TDP of 69 W - an excellent offer for those who are going to use discrete graphics. That is, first of all, naturally, for small assemblers of ready-made systems, but also for individual buyers, $18 (the difference between the “boxed” versions of 3350P and 3470) will not be superfluous. With the 3330S, everything is also clear - it is supplied only through OEM channels and costs $7 cheaper than the 3470S: just a little, but for a large batch of all-in-one PCs or compact desktops (where processors with a TDP of 65 W are used) the savings can be significant . But the Core i5-3330... It’s not clear - for whom? The “boxed” version costs only 8 dollars cheaper than the 3470, the OEM version is even 2 (two!) dollars cheaper. At the same time, the processors differ only in frequency, but the “floor” for the 3470 (3.2 GHz without turbo, which in practice will be a rare occurrence, since even with a load on all four cores the processor can overclock to 3.4 GHz) is the “ceiling” for 3330 (where this frequency is achieved only in turbo mode, and no more than at half load). And the maximum frequency of the video core has been reduced by 50 MHz - to the level of Core i3/Pentium.

In short, an incomprehensible processor. The only explanation is a retail (fortunately the “boxed” prices are the same) replacement of the Core i5-23xx line, which it was decided to “shoot” entirely. We wouldn’t buy it for ourselves :) But for testing, naturally, the processor is interesting. Firstly, because this is the youngest quad-core Ivy Bridge. Secondly, this is another processor with a nominal frequency of 3.0 GHz and turbo mode, i.e., formally, it is the same as the Phenom II X4 960T and X6 1075T. Its maximum frequency, however, is the minimum (pardon the pun) in this trio, but the architecture is the most modern. With the Pentium G2120 and Core i3-3220, again, it’s interesting to compare.

As we have warned more than once, we have not yet used the ability of Ivy Bridge to work with DDR3-1600 in the main line of tests. However, increasing the memory frequency does almost nothing for the top-end Core i7-3770K (when using a discrete video card, of course), so it would be difficult to expect record yields in relation to the Core i5, i3 or, especially, Pentium (we recently received for representatives this class of processors is only 2% on average of replacing DDR3-1066 with DDR3-1333, but a further transition to DDR3-1600 will not give that much). However, in testing according to the next version of the test methodology (the transition to which is not far off), we will stop “leveling” the environment for processors under LGA1155, but for now we will keep today’s practice unchanged (otherwise we would have to retest a considerable number of already studied processors of the Ivy Bridge family).

Testing

Traditionally, we divide all tests into a number of groups and show on diagrams the average result for a group of tests/applications (you can find out more about the testing methodology in a separate article). The results in the diagrams are given in points; the performance of the reference test system from the 2011 sample site is taken as 100 points. It is based on the AMD Athlon II X4 620 processor, but the amount of memory (8 GB) and video card () are standard for all tests of the “main line” and can only be changed within the framework of special studies. For those who are interested in more detailed information, again, it is traditionally proposed to download a table in Microsoft Excel format, in which all the results are presented both converted into points and in “natural” form.

Interactive work in 3D packages

As expected, the 960T was slightly faster than the 955, but slower than the 1075T - a low-threaded group of tests in which Turbo Core technology can be fully developed. However, this “power” itself, as we see, is not enough - Intel processors with the same or even slightly lower frequencies are much faster. And that they also stay in a tight group is understandable - as we have already installed, Hyper-Threading in this group only interferes, and additional “honest” cores are simply not needed.

Final rendering of 3D scenes

These subtests are already capable of loading any reasonable number of computation threads with work, so the Phenom II X6 1075T has almost caught up with the Core i5-3330. Achievement? Not very - average six-core processor almost caught up with the younger quad-core. Well, quad-core models with such initial data are naturally capable of competing on equal terms only against two cores with Hyper-Threading. And the only thing that saves the situation here is that the second one is more expensive. And for the same money, Intel offers only two regular cores, which are significantly slower.

From a less global perspective - as expected, with such a load the 955 is slightly faster than the 960T: Turbo Core does not work when the cores are fully loaded.

Packing and Unpacking

Multi-threading is supported in only one subtest out of four, so the 960T is slightly faster than the 955 and both are behind the Pentium G2120. But the 1075T is capable of competing with the Core i3-3220 - in general, it’s also a pretty funny comparison :)

Audio encoding

In terms of the type of load, this group of tests is similar to rendering, so the results are consistent. Not too happy for the Phenom II, the X4 is, of course, capable of overtaking conventional dual-core processors, but these are found only among budget products. But “two cores, four threads” at comparable clock frequencies is no worse in performance than four “real” old-style cores. Well, six of them, obviously, are hardly able to argue with four more modern ones. Yes, we remember that the 1075T is not the oldest Phenom II X6, but there were two models faster than it. And the Core i5-3330 is the slowest desktop quad-core Ivy Bridge.

Compilation

Compiler tests have always been Phenom's strong point, but at the moment their victory here is starting to turn into a purely nominal one: yes, somewhat faster, but whom faster? A couple of years ago, the same 1075T easily overtook the fastest Core i5, and the Phenom II X4 remained at a level comparable to the latter. So compare this with the current state of affairs.

Mathematical and engineering calculations

You can do without detailed comments - as we see, these types of loads have a bad effect on Intel processors (since Pentium, Core i3 and Core i5 “hang out” at the same level despite different prices), and for the Phenom II they are generally like death (since here and the comparison with Pentium would be politically incorrect).

Raster graphics

There is some multi-threaded optimization in some programs, but it only allows you to arrange Intel processors in the correct sequence and allows the Phenom II X6 to overtake the X4. That's all - two practically non-overlapping worlds.

Vector graphics

Two streams are enough, which leads to a certain chaos in the range of products for LGA1155, but Phenom helps little. The difference between the three models taken today is completely determined by the Turbo Core (or the lack of this technology in the 955) and does not allow any of them to fully compete with the older Pentiums. However, we note once again that the younger Core i5 also manages this with difficulty, which is why Intel has to artificially restrain the frequencies of dual-core budget models: there is a lot of software similar to these two programs on the market.

Video encoding

On the one hand, there is room for multi-core processors to develop; on the other hand, as we have said more than once (including quite recently), for video codecs the number of cores is important, but not the only parameter of processors. Accordingly, all that the Phenom II X4 955 and 960T managed to do was to overtake “simple” dual-core processors, and the Phenom II X6 1075T was enough to compete with also dual-core, but four-threaded ones. Again, let us remind you that a couple of years ago everything looked completely different: in video encoding, only Core i7 could handle X6, and X4 performed on an equal footing with older Core i5. Now everything is different. Because AMD has the same processors as then, while Intel only has the same family names that remain old :)

Office software

And again the same thing! Nothing unexpected, of course - most of the tests in this group are generally single-threaded. Just another illustration of the fact that you need to choose processors based on the number of cores very carefully - not all of them will necessarily be used by software. And selecting software “for multi-cores” is a simple task only for testers: there are a lot of “inconvenient” applications among the popular ones. As if not even the majority - if by “popular” we mean massively used.

Java

But in some specific niches, the oldies, of course, perform well. Relatively good - compared to other applications, and not at all in terms of absolute results. From their point of view, as we said above, the victories of an average six-core processor over a junior quad-core processor or a once good quad-core processor, at best, over a Core i3 do not cause much optimism.

Games

As we have said more than once, modern games require four computation threads in all cases where the video card is not the bottleneck. However, as we see, “in general” a fast dual-core processor (such as a Pentium) is quite capable of keeping up with slow quad-core processors (such as a Phenom II). If you look at the detailed results, it is noticeable that some applications still “like” the latter a little more. But there is no longer talk of any clear superiority. With the same architecture, we can say for sure that four cores are better than two in games (and any, even “flavored” with Hyper-Threading, not to mention “regular”), but with different ones, anything can happen.

Multitasking environment

As we have said more than once, there is no exclusivity in the results of the test with the simultaneous launch of several programs - we simply emulated another multi-threaded application. And the result is appropriate: the low-end quad-core Phenom II X4 is 25% faster than the dual-core Pentium, but approximately equal to the Core i3, and the average six-core Phenom II X6 1075T is just a little faster than the low-end third-generation Core i5. The resulting cores in the Ivy Bridge family are so efficient that they win not by numbers, but by skill.

Total

This, in fact, is the answer to the question why the Phenom II X4 955 is at the Pentium level. Yes, because its performance is on average at the same level! There are no miracles that many thrifty buyers hope for - the price of each item is determined by how much it can be sold for. And for processors, the latter depends on performance and power consumption. Could the 955 now cost over $100 like it did in the summer? Of course not - for that kind of money there are already more attractive offers. But for “about 100” it’s already a very good processor, capable (with a multi-threaded load) of competing with a Core i3. But, note, not with Core i5, where there are the same four cores - quantity does not always translate into quality. So it is precisely this (and not at all concern for the low-income segments of the population) that explains the price declines. And the disappearance of Thuban from retail chains while formally continuing supplies is also due to them: for market success, all six-core AMD models (including top ones) should cost no more than $150, and the company has neither the desire nor the ability to produce them with such initial data ( if you remember the crystal size of 346 mm² - more than two (!) times larger than that of quad-core Ivy Bridge). Of course, in some specific areas of application, multi-core Phenom IIs still look very good, but no less often (and just in widely popular mass-market applications) they are outperformed by budget Intel processors. Developments on a new microarchitecture (both APUs and updated ones) are a much less sad sight, while the “classic” Athlon and Phenom have definitely reached a dead end.

So for the build new system Phenom II, despite the price reduction, are not of particular interest (except for the case of a “crazy programmer” who compiles something 24 hours a day, generating electricity using a personal windmill). However, there are users who can benefit from the ongoing “sale”: Phenom II X4 955 and 965 are perfect for upgrading a system on some Athlon II, not to mention older AMD processors (the latter, of course, only if technically possible) . The “hundred-buck upgrade” will be especially interesting to owners of large amounts of DDR2 memory: so what if the performance is far from the maximum on the market - but this the only way Do not change both the memory and the motherboard along with the processor. AMD is also aware of this. And I don’t mind (despite the established reputation of Robin Hood as a defender of the poor and oppressed) making extra money on it: only 955 and 965 have fallen in price, but for slightly faster models they are asking $140-160.

However, since all Phenom II X4 currently sold belong to the Black Edition family, ways to combat this injustice have long been known. Yes, yes: cobblestone dispersal is a weapon of the proletariat. In the same way, you can “defeat” AMD’s reluctance to reduce prices on the Phenom II X6: the Phenom II X4 960T can still be found on sale, and (if you have a suitable motherboard) you can also unlock a couple of cores for it. There is, of course, a risk that it won’t work out, but the end result, it seems to us, is worth the risk. Moreover, in case of failure, you will end up with a processor with performance approximately similar, as we see, to the Phenom II X4 955, which, taking into account the minimal difference in the price of these processors, is quite normal. But if everything goes well, you will get an almost complete analogue of the Phenom II X6 1075T. Not only much more expensive, but also in a different performance class.

And in any case, we should not forget that all the advantages of multi-core Phenom II can be experienced in practice only if there are a large number of programs optimized for multi-threaded processors among constantly used applications. If there is no confidence in this, then there is little point in having four to six cores either. One or two computation threads are the realm of the Pentium, in which these processors can easily compete on equal terms with the Core i3/i5, not to mention the Phenom II. And the video part in them is noticeably better than in the old (technologically; no matter what is still sold) integrated AMD chipsets, and the power consumption of such models is noticeably lower.

However, a sale is always a good thing because there are ways to take advantage of it. As well as the gradual transition of processors for LGA1155 to Ivy Bridge is also good: they are better than their predecessors, which, in general, will be noticeable to all their customers. Although this transition sometimes takes strange paths, sometimes giving rise to very strange models, such as the Core i5-3330. Until recently, the 2320 of the previous generation remained nominally the cheapest Core i5, but now Intel has apparently decided to make a replacement for it (and, by the way, a little faster than the i5-2400). But the practical implementation let us down: compared to the 3470, the processor was too slow, and the real retail prices of these models in Moscow often differ by only 100 rubles, or even less. 2320 or the older 2310 allow you (if you look hard enough) to save about 300 rubles, which is much more interesting when money comes first. In general, why he was born like this is absolutely unknown to us. On the other hand, its availability for sale, in general, does not bother anyone, and it may be useful for assemblers of ready-made systems. The main thing is not to buy it inadvertently. Why, in fact, we took the time to test it: forewarned is forearmed.

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | Introduction

We were quite surprised when AMD announced Socket AM3 interface a couple of months ago, along with processors that turned out to be slower than the Phenom II X4 940 BE, already available at that time for AM2+ platforms. Of course, the triple-core Phenom II X3 700 and quad-core X4 800 line cannot be called slow or weak, but the feeling was still not the best, especially in the test results, where they were inferior to the leader under AM2+.

Yes, AMD tried to focus on versatility. You could buy any of the new inexpensive processors and install them on a new Socket AM3 motherboard or old platform Socket AM2+ with DDR2 memory. The more expensive DDR3 modules were not well suited for AMD's "budget" platforms, so the company was deliberately somewhat silent about the importance of AM3 - at least at that time.

But the situation has changed a little since then. Now the company has a new flagship processor that can be installed in the AM3 socket. There is something new graphic solution Radeon HD 4890, which can enhance the overall performance of the Dragon platform. An updated version of the AMD Overdrive utility is in development, which will now be released in iteration 3.0 and, presumably, will improve work with platforms with DDR3 memory.

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | A little history: Dragon yesterday and today

When AMD announced the Dragon platform in June of this year, it consisted of a Phenom II X4 processor, an ATI Radeon HD 4800 family graphics card, and an AMD 7 line chipset. But, as a rule, AMD described the Dragon platform as a Phenom II X4 940 processor, with a Radeon HD graphics card 4870 and a motherboard based on the 790GX chipset.

AMD says every component of the Dragon platform has changed in recent months. True, but not entirely. In the end, the company's line of chipsets has not changed, and if plans are to be believed, this will not happen until early 2010, when the 790FX will give way to the RD890/SB850. Believe it or not, the 790GX will gradually fade from the scene, and the productivity market will be pulled by the 790X/SB850 combination. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.

There are also new Phenom II X4 processors - now these are models up to the top-end 955 and 945 (the x55 designation means compatibility with Socket AM3 so that consumers can distinguish processors from the 920/940). Socket AM3 support, as you know, allows the platform to move from DDR2 to DDR3 memory. However, if we consider the new Dragon platform, the Radeon HD 4890 increases the price too much (in the international market it has dropped to $229, but in Russia prices start from 9.8 thousand rubles), and gaming performance compared to the 4870 1GB increases by only about 10%. By the way, AMD began to supply “boxed” processors with an updated cooler, which turned out to be narrower and shorter than that of the previous model.

And, of course, we should note the new version of the Overdrive utility. But we will return to it a little later. In the meantime, let us take a closer look at the new Phenom II X4 processors.

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | New flagship

The latest top-end processor from AMD was released in January of this year. It ran at 3 GHz and combined a completely new (for AMD) 45 nm process technology with a number of microarchitectural improvements, including a larger (and faster) L3 cache, Cool"n"Quiet 3.0 technology and a better branch prediction system.

But, as we have already mentioned, the subsequent announcement of the new Socket AM3 platform a month later was accompanied by the announcement of processors for the mass market, although we are accustomed to receiving top-end solutions in such cases.

However, we didn’t have to wait long: AMD announced a new flagship for the Socket AM3 platform: Phenom II X4 955 at 3.2 GHz, equipped with the same 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

There is nothing special to add to this, since everything else was already known from the Phenom II line. However, recall that the processor has 64 KB of L1 data and instruction cache for each core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core and, again, 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The 128-bit integrated DDR2/DDR3 memory controller (operating at 2 GHz by default) uses a pair of 64-bit channels. If you install the X4 955 processor in an AM2+ motherboard, you will get speeds up to DDR2-1066. But if you upgrade to the AM3 platform, you can install DDR3-1333 memory, although at this frequency only one module per channel is allowed. And while AMD equipped the Phenom II X4 940 processors with a 1800-MHz HyperTransport channel, the X4 955 accelerates this channel to 2 GHz - as is the case with other AM3 processors.

The nominal supply voltage of the processor is 0.875V-1.5 V, that is, at the level of the Phenom II X4 940, so we were not surprised by the power consumption corresponding to the previous flagship. Yes, the new processor also has a thermal package (TDP) of 125 W.

Socket AM2/AM3 processors
Model	Frequency	L3 cache	Voltage	Model number	Socket
Phenom II X4 955 BE	3.2 GHz	6 MB	0.875-1.5 V	Tray: HDZ955FBK4DGI PIB: HDZ955FBGIBOX	AM3, AM2+, AM2
Phenom II X4 945	3.0 GHz	6 MB	0.875-1.5 V	Tray: HDX945FBK4DGI PIB: HDX945FBGIBOX	AM3, AM2+, AM2
Phenom II X4 910	2.6 GHz	6 MB	0.875-1.425 V	Tray: HDX910WFK4DGI	AM3, AM2+, AM2
Phenom II X4 810	2.6 GHz	4 MB	0.875-1.425 V	Tray: HDX810WFK4FGI PIB: HDX810WFGIBOX	AM3, AM2+, AM2
Phenom II X4 805	2.5 GHz	4 MB	0.875-1.425 V	Tray: HDX805WFK4FGI	AM3, AM2+, AM2
Phenom II X3 720 BE	2.8 GHz	6 MB	0.850-1.425 V	Tray: HDZ720WFK3DGI PIB: HDZ720WFGIBOX	AM3, AM2+, AM2
Phenom II X3 710	2.6 GHz	6 MB	0.875-1.425 V	Tray: HDX710WFK3DGI PIB: HDX710WFGIBOX	AM3, AM2+, AM2
Phenom II X4 940 BE	3.0 GHz	6 MB	0.875-1.5 V	Tray: HDZ940XCJ4DGI PIB: HDZ940XCGIBOX	AM2+, AM2
Phenom II X4 920	2.8 GHz	6 MB	0.875-1.5 V	Tray: HDX920XCJ4DGI PIB: HDX920XCGIBOX	AM2+, AM2

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | New Dragon platform

We've talked about this before, but AMD once eschewed the concept of platforms, preferring to focus only on processors. However, this approach was heavily criticized, and Intel's strategy did have advantages, since the company offered its own processor, chipset, motherboard, network card, storage controller, etc., which was appreciated by enterprise buyers. And system builders liked the fact that they received centralized support.

Today AMD fully supports the platform strategy, and such a decision can only be welcomed. In fact, the company emphasizes its platforms so strongly that it's hard to believe that things were once very different. First came the Spider platform. AMD then introduced the Dragon platform. Today we received the "Dragon Update".

However, we are of little interest to marketing terminology - the hardware component is much more important. The Dragon 1.0 platform consisted of the Phenom II, a Radeon HD 4800 line GPU video card and a 7 line chipset. All these components are still relevant today.

The update gave us a boost of up to 200 MHz, since the flagship processor runs at 3.2 GHz. It is now possible to use DDR3 memory together with the new Socket AM3 processor interface. And the new ATI Radeon HD 4890 video card is also included. In addition, we note the appearance of a new “boxed” cooler, which is slightly smaller than the previous version.

Old cooler on the left, new cooler on the right.

How expensive are all these platform upgrades compared to AMD's original Dragon launch in January? The prices are very close. We initially priced the processor, motherboard and memory package at around $450 ($275 for the X4 940, $130 for a low-end 790GX motherboard, and $50 for 4GB DDR2 memory). Today, the updated platform can be purchased for about the same price. The X4 955 will retail for $245 at the time of announcement, but the money saved will eat up the 4 GB of DDR3 memory. We indicated prices for the international market; in Russia, check prices at price.ru or other similar sources.

It just so happens that in our tests we will use the more expensive Asus M4A79T Deluxe motherboard for $190 (7 thousand rubles in Russia), which is based on the 790FX chipset, and not on the 790GX.

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | DDR2 vs DDR3

In our original article, dedicated to the announcement of Socket AM3, we did not test the same processors in the Socket AM3 and Socket AM2+ interfaces to evaluate the benefits of installing DDR3 memory (if any). Then we received many requests to make such a comparison from our readers, which we do in this review.

We tested the new Phenom II X4 955 processor (at 3.2 GHz) on an Asus M3A78-T motherboard using the 790GX chipset with Socket AM2+, with BIOS version 0903. We then ran tests on an Asus M4A79T Deluxe motherboard built on the chipset 790FX with Socket AM3, with BIOS version 0902. The AM2+ platform was equipped with 4 GB (2 x 2 GB) of memory based on fast Corsair DDR2-1066 modules with CAS latencies of 5-5-5. The AM3 system ran 4 GB (2 x 2 GB) of DDR3 memory based on Corsair DDR3-1600 modules (in DDR3-1333 mode) with latencies of 8-8-8.

The first performance test of SiSoftware Sandra 2009 with SP3 installed demonstrates the throughput advantage of DDR3 on the same processor. As we'll see below, memory overclocking allows for even more pure memory bandwidth. But for our purposes, we'll be comparing memory at the highest speeds officially supported by AMD's integrated memory controller.

Encoding applications are among the most demanding, and the DDR3 memory system in the Mainconcept application is slightly ahead. In any case, it is worth noting that at the moment the transition from DDR2 to DDR3 memory is not worth it if you already have a Spider or Dragon platform. But as DDR3 memory prices drop, enthusiasts or casual users looking to upgrade may be better off switching to the new memory technology. As happened with DDR, DDR2's days will be numbered when AMD and Intel begin to fully support DDR3 on their platforms.

The iTunes test isn't as demanding as our other apps, but it's one that many users run on a regular basis. And CD conversion was a second faster on the AM3 platform. The improvement is not as noticeable, but the trend is still visible.

The DivX and Xvid encoding tests benefit by three seconds when switching to DDR3 memory. Of course, the victory can hardly be called decisive. But we observed the same situation in 2000, when we switched to the new AMD 760 chipset with support for DDR memory. The benefits may not be as dramatic today, but we can expect the architecture to become more memory-bandwidth dependent as DDR3 becomes more widespread.

The good news is that 4 GB kits of CAS 8 DDR3-1333 memory today cost about $70 (from 2500 rubles in Russia) - much lower than the terrible level when DDR3 memory first began to appear. But keep in mind that if you buy higher voltage modules, you may not be able to use them when upgrading to a Core i7 system.

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | Overdrive 3.0

AMD's "Dragon 2.0" platform relies in part on software support. Of course, Intel's hardware component of the platform is very strong - this is one of the cornerstones of the company. AMD entered the platform scene relatively recently, combining a processor, chipset and video card into a single platform. However, where Intel's position is weak is in the field of consumer software.

Click on the picture to enlarge.

The AMD Overdrive utility has already been quite warmly received by enthusiast communities who were somewhat tired of setting overclocking settings through the BIOS. Indeed, how long can you stand it if you have to reboot every time to run stability tests, even after changing the parameters a little? Overdrive offers many functions, making the overclocker's work easier and faster. However, everything that could be done in earlier versions of Overdrive could be set through the BIOS, so the program was simply more convenient.

Overdrive was followed by the Fusion utility - it allows gamers to set system profiles that can be turned on/off with a simple keystroke. For example, we can create an economical and quiet profile (with reduced frequencies and voltage) under Windows with all services running. If you need maximum system performance, for example, in the game Dawn of War II, then you can press the Fusion key, which disables background services unnecessary for the game, and also activates the latest proven Overdrive overclocking settings. The only disappointment is that this function requires the use of AMD Auto-Tune, and overclockers are unlikely to like such automatic overclocking - especially if you have a Black Edition processor with the ability to change the multiplier.

A new version of the Overdrive utility is currently being developed, namely 3.0. The most noticeable addition in the new version is BEMP, that is, Black Edition Memory Profiles. But if you look past the name, BEMP has nothing in common with AMD Black Edition processors. And, in truth, BEMP can't do anything that an experienced user couldn't do in the BIOS. However, the feature simplifies memory configuration - similar to Intel XMP or Nvidia EPP technologies.

Click on the picture to enlarge.

The BEMP function works very simply. In Overdrive (and compatible BIOSes on AM3 motherboards), you click on "Preference" and then select "Online Update". Click on the "Check" button, after which the configuration of your memory modules will be searched in the online database. If profiles are found there, the corresponding “Profile Information” fields will be filled in, and the “Update” button will appear, which will set the optimal clock frequencies, delays and voltage. Again, most enthusiasts already know how to customize these settings. But BEMP can also automatically increase the voltage and frequency of the memory controller, increasing the effect of optimal memory settings, according to AMD.

Of course, all this interested us, so we took a memory kit with declared BEMP support and ran tests.

At the time of publication, five memory kits were supported from Corsair, Kingston, Mushkin and OCZ. As you can see, the choice is small. And BEMP, in general, is not as significant as the ACC function for the original Phenom (or Phenom II, if you have a motherboard that allows unlock processors from the X3 700 or X4 800 series). In general, the function simply provides more convenience for those users who do not know how to set delays through the BIOS. But BEMP has a small side feature: if you installed high-speed memory and did not overclock the memory controller (northbridge), then you will not get the full benefit of the DDR3 frequency. BEMP allows you to use one key to both switch the memory to maximum performance mode and overclock the memory controller/north bridge. And in this regard, the function can be considered very useful.

Click on the picture to enlarge.

In addition, the list of improvements in the Overdrive 3.0 utility includes the Smart Profiles function, which provides manual settings, but gives more precise control over overclocking. You will be able to overclock depending on the running applications. So, to run WinZip 12 or another single-threaded application, you can create an appropriate profile that reduces the frequencies of the three cores of the Phenom II so that the fourth core has increased thermal overclocking potential, which will hopefully give an additional 200 or 300 MHz. The problem is that your favorite applications will have to be specified separately, setting the core frequency, core binding, etc. for each. However, the function is still quite interesting, and most enthusiasts will probably want to use it. AMD was able to demonstrate modest performance gains, mostly due to increased overclocking potential.

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | Test configuration

Test configuration
CPU	AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition (Deneb) 3.2 GHz, AM3, 2000 MHz HT, 6 MB L3 cache, power saving features disabled AMD Phenom II X4 940 Black Edition (Deneb) 3.0 GHz, AM2+, 1800 MHz HT, 6 MB L3 cache, power saving features disabled AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition (Heka) 2.8 GHz, AM2+, 2000 MHz HT, 6 MB L3 cache, power saving features disabled Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550S (Yorkfield) 2.83 GHz, LGA 775, 1333 MHz FSB, 12 MB L2 cache, power saving features disabled Intel Core i7 965 Extreme (Bloomfield) 3.2 GHz, LGA 1366, 6.4 GT/s QPI, 8 MB L3 cache, power saving features disabled Intel Core i7 920 (Bloomfield) 2.66 GHz, LGA 1366, 4.8 GT/s QPI, 8 MB L3 cache, power saving features disabled
Motherboard	Asus M4A79T Deluxe (AM3) 790FX/SB750, BIOS 0902 Asus M3A78-T (AM2+) 790GX/SB750, BIOS 0903 Intel DX48BT2 (LGA 775) X48/ICH10R, BIOS 1902 Asus P6T (LGA 1366) X58/ICH10R, BIOS 0502
Memory	Corsair 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR3-1600 8-8-8-24 @ DDR3-1333 Corsair 4 GB (2 x 2 GB) DDR2-1066 5-5-5-15 Corsair 6GB (3 x 2GB) DDR3-1600 8-8-8-24 @ DDR3-1333
HDD	Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000GLFS 300 GB, 10,000 rpm, SATA 3 Gb/s
Video card	Zotac GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 896 MB
power unit	Cooler Master UCP 1100 W
System software and drivers
operating system	Windows Vista Ultimate Edition x64, Service Pack 1
DirectX	DirectX 10
Platform Driver	Catalyst 9.4 Intel INF Chipset Update Utility 9.1.0.1012
Graphics driver	GeForce 182.50

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | Tests and settings

3D games
Stalker: Clear Sky	Quality settings set to high, 1920x1200/1680x1050, Benchmark tool, average of all four scenarios
Far Cry 2	Quality settings set to high, 1920x1200/1680x1050, latest Steam version, in-game benchmark (Ranch medium).
Left 4 Dead	Quality settings set to max, 1920x1200/1680x1050, latest Steam version, timed demo.
World in Conflict	Quality settings set to very high, 1920x1200/1680x1050, Patch 1.009, Built-in benchmark.
Grand Theft Auto 4	Quality settings set to high, Anisotropic filtering: "High," 1920x1200/1680x1050, Patch 1.3, Built-in benchmark.
Audio encoding
iTunes	Version: 8.1.0.52, Audio CD ("Terminator II" SE), 53 min., Default format AAC
Lame MP3	Version: 3.98 (64-bit), Audio CD ""Terminator II" SE, 53 min, wave to MP3, 160 Kb/s
Video encoding
TMPEG 4.6	Version: 4.5.1.254, Import File: "Terminator II" SE DVD (5 Minutes), Resolution: 720x576 (PAL) 16:9
DivX 6.8.5	Encoding mode: Insane Quality, Enhanced Multi-Threading, Enabled using SSE4, Quarter-pixel search
XviD 1.2.1	Display encoding status=off
Main concept Reference 1.6.1	MPEG2 to MPEG2 (H.264), MainConcept H.264/AVC Codec, 28 sec HDTV 1920x1080 (MPEG2), Audio: MPEG2 (44.1 KHz, 2 Channel, 16-Bit, 224 Kb/s), Mode: PAL (25 FPS), Profile: Tom's Hardware Settings for Qct-Core
Applications
Autodesk 3D Studio Max 2009 (64-bit)	Version: 2009, Rendering Dragon Image at 1920x1080 (HDTV)
Winrar 3.80	Version 3.80, Benchmark: THG-Workload (334 MB)
Winzip 12	Version 12, Compression=Best, Benchmark: THG-Workload (334 MB)
Synthetic tests
3DMark Vantage	Version: 1.02, GPU and CPU scores
PCMark Vantage	Version: 1.00, System, Memory, Hard Disk Drive benchmarks, Windows Media Player 10.00.00.3646
SiSoftware Sandra 2009 SP3	CPU Test=CPU Arithmetic/MultiMedia, Memory Test=Bandwidth Benchmark

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | Test results

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | Synthetic tests

In terms of price, AMD is closest to the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550, which sells on the international market for $270 (from 9 thousand rubles in Russia). In the PCMark test package overall result This 2.83GHz Intel competitor was able to slightly beat the AMD X4 955, although the results are close.

The Phenom II X4 940 lags slightly behind the X4 955, and the results of the X3 720 drop more significantly - still, the fourth core is missing.

But the Core i7 965 Extreme and Core i7 920 processors provide a serious performance boost over the Q9550. And at a price of $288 on the international market (from 10.7 thousand rubles in Russia), the i7 920 looks like a very worthy purchase.

Once again, the Phenom II X4 955 showed results close to the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550, although it was slightly inferior. Considering the price difference of $30, the result is quite expected. Pay attention to the CPU results, where you can see the advantage of the Core i7 in this synthetic test, even compared to Intel's own Core 2 Quad microarchitecture.

Sandra 2009 uses new terminology for arithmetic and multimedia tests, now measuring giga instructions per second, giga floating point operations per second, and megapixels per second (in addition to gigabytes per second in the memory bandwidth test).

The tests immediately demonstrate the arithmetic power of the Core i7. The AMD Phenom II X4 provides improved performance in the multimedia test, easily competing with the Core i7 920.

The Core i7's three-channel memory controller provides a significant advantage in memory bandwidth, but the Phenom II's integrated memory controller is significantly faster at handling memory compared to the chipset's northbridge in the Core 2 Quad architecture. The Phenom II X4 940's low memory bandwidth in this test is quite interesting, but the results are quite repeatable.

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | Audio and video encoding

The Phenom II X3 720 ranks last in the video transcoding test that supports multi-threading. The Phenom II X4 performs well, outperforming the Core 2 Quad Q9550 and approaching the performance of the Intel Core i7 920. Intel's Nehalem design continues to emphasize its dominance in A/V encoding tests, but AMD also holds up quite well.

The iTunes test does not support multi-threading, so it reacts more noticeably to pure clock speed and microarchitecture (the loss of the Core i7 920 in clock frequency compared to the Core 2 Quad just equalized the results of the two architectures). AMD is lagging behind, even though we see good scalability when moving from 2.8 to 3.0 and 3.2 GHz.

We tried the latest versions of DivX and Xvid codecs using the TMPGEnc utility. It is quite natural that Intel processors used SSE4, and AMD processors used SSE/SSE2/3DNow! (by the way, this test already supports CUDA acceleration).

DivX is a multi-threaded application, and we see that the Phenom II X3 again suffers from performance degradation compared to quad-core processors. The Phenom II X4 955 outperforms the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550, but it, in turn, is crushed by the Core i7 processors.

Xvid cannot benefit from quad-core CPUs; this codec responds better to clock speed. The latest Phenom II and Core 2 Quad models are close to each other, but are beaten by the Core i7 processors.

We ran the 64-bit version of Lame, but it didn't make much of a difference in performance compared to the older 32-bit version. Again, here we see a greater impact of clock speed rather than multithreading. All AMD processors are inferior to Intel Core 2 and Core i7 models in our testing.

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | Applications

We are currently updating our test application suite, so we have temporarily omitted the AVG and Photoshop antivirus tests (we will soon introduce another antivirus script, as well as Photoshop CS4).

We used latest version WinZip, however it still does not respond well to multiple cores, performance is more dependent on the clock speed. The speed of the Phenom II processors scales linearly, with even the 2.83 GHz Core 2 Quad being able to outperform the 2.66 GHz Core i7 920.

The latest version of WinRAR, on the other hand, is able to use all the cores in the system - so the Core i7 has a pretty resounding victory.

It seems rather strange that the X3 720 is equal to the AMD X4 940 - the latter is 200 MHz faster and contains one more core. In any case, AMD performed well against the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550, beating it by 16 seconds when compressing the test set of 334 MB files.

The update to the latest version of 3ds Max 2009 (64-bit) also demonstrates serious multi-threaded optimization. The Phenom II X3 720 processor turns out to be very slow. In general, for rendering tasks you cannot do without a quad-core processor.

The Phenom II X4 955 performs well against the Core 2 Quad Q9550, beating it by a second. Both Core i7 processors were able to produce better results, which is what we expected from applications that are well optimized for multi-threading.

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | Games

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | Far Cry 2

Here we are watching old story. In our test Socket AM3 platforms we observed some pretty strange results that forced us to then publish. Not much has changed since then, and in many benchmarks we're seeing slower gaming benchmarks on Core i7 processors with nVidia graphics cards. If we use AMD video card, then the results will differ much more, as we have already demonstrated in our article .

However, the conclusion turned out to be quite positive for AMD, since the Phenom II X4 955 and Core 2 Quad Q9550 give the highest frame rates in Far Cry 2 without anisotropic filtering or anti-aliasing. Let's see what happens if we enable increased visual detail (by loading the graphics subsystem more heavily).

The Core i7's performance gap continues even after enabling anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing. The Core 2 Quad clearly gives a higher frame rate, closely followed by the Phenom II X4 955. However, the difference is small. Will we be able to get the same performance picture in Stalker: Clear Sky?

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | Stalker: Clear Sky

Not at all. Intel Core i7 processors paired with an Nvidia GeForce GTX 260 Core 216 graphics card demonstrate their dominance (although, to be honest, the difference in this case is absolutely negligible). Stalker is a graphically intensive game, so the GeForce results are fairly well normalized in this case. You can expect the same situation after enabling anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing.

All the processors we tested produce results that differ within one frame per second at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 resolutions, and both resolutions are quite problematic to play at. If you want to get normal gaming performance, then it is better to get a more powerful video card.

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | Left 4 Dead

The AMD Phenom II X4 955 took third place behind both Intel Core i7s. The difference in 1920x1200 resolution is still very small, and the Core 2 Quad processor gives almost the same results.

The results become closer to each other after enabling anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering. "Why not test at 640x480 or 800x600, where the performance difference between processors would be more noticeable?" Indeed, but you will buy a processor for $200-$300 and a video card of comparable price precisely in order to avoid such modes, right?

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | WiC

The three Intel processors provide the highest frame rates in World in Conflict, but it's worth noting that the AMD Phenom II X4 955 performs fairly close to the Core 2 Quad.

If you enable anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering, then at a resolution of 1920x1200 all mentioned processors give very similar results. There is no serious difference.

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | Grand Theft Auto 4

The only exception in this console port is the AMD Phenom II X3 720, which lags at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 resolutions. The remaining processors provide relatively similar performance, which is what we've come to expect from Grand Theft Auto 4.

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | Energy consumption

When comparing energy consumption, we got some pretty interesting results. First of all, it's worth noting that we used our engineering sample of the Core i7 965 to simulate the performance of the Core i7 920 (SpeedStep technology was not available), locking its frequency at 2.66 GHz on the Asus P6T motherboard. Therefore, all of our idle measurements were taken with each platform running at its rated clock speeds. Fortunately, a retail version of the Core i7 920 processor (with unlocked memory multipliers) will soon arrive in our laboratory.

This may explain the strange results at idle, where the X3 720 consumes more power than the quad-core Phenom II, but under load we get a completely unclear picture. The Phenom II X3 processor consumes more than the other two Phenom IIs.

It should also be noted that the Core 2 Quad Q9550 gave minimal power consumption due to the fact that we took a chip from the economical Core 2 Quad Q9550S line with a thermal package (TDP) of 65 W. We published a separate one. For this reason, this processor has become a champion in low power consumption, although it costs significantly more than the Q9550.

As a result, the relatively new 45nm process technology allows the new Phenom II X4 955 to deliver almost the same power consumption as the X4 940 - the 1W difference can be attributed to the 1.8V DDR3 memory instead of 2.1V DDR2 modules.

AMD Phenom II X4 955 | Conclusion

It only took two months before AMD finally revealed the leaders for the new Socket AM3.

However, we still didn’t get the “killer” Core i7. In fact, the fastest AMD processor cannot keep up with the slowest i7 processor (unless you look at gaming results, but there the performance difference between quad-core processors is very small).

But AMD hit the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 pretty well. And this is important. With the exception of the DP-capable Core 2 Extreme QX9775 ($1,500), AMD has only one Core 2 Quad processor left among its superior rivals: the 3GHz Core 2 Quad Q9650. This means that the Phenom II X4 955's performance is at the high end of the mass market, with an unlocked multiplier and a platform that is superior to that of the Core 2 Quad line (thanks to thoughtful software support for enthusiasts and overclockers). However, AMD is still inferior to the Core i7 with the CrossFire/SLI ecosystem.

In the end, everything will depend on the price. If the Phenom II X4 955 plus a 790FX/GX motherboard with 4GB of DDR3-1333 memory is the limit for your budget (let's put it in the $500 region, for example), then you can hardly go wrong. We were able to squeeze out a frequency of 3.6 GHz from our processor using a standard “boxed” cooler before it went beyond the temperature threshold of 60 degrees and began to fail in the Prime95 test. So overclocking will require a more powerful cooler. AMD nicely complements the hardware capabilities with its software package - Overdrive 3.0 and Fusion utilities have moved well beyond the usual BIOS modification, and now they have become a nice additional package that allows you to increase performance, save power and more accurately control how your computer works .

A set of Core i7 920 with an X58 motherboard and 6 GB of DDR3-1333 memory will cost about $100 more - temptingly close. However, this scenario is also not bad, since in many tests the 2.66 GHz processor outperformed all other solutions. You won't get Overdrive or Fusion, but the addition of CrossFire and SLI support is pretty significant, especially for gamers who are fans of nVidia GPUs.

Without a doubt, AMD is showing signs of life. Progress in the field of hardware is very noticeable, as can be seen with the release of the Phenom II X4 955 and Radeon HD 4890 a little earlier in April. AMD software developers are seriously focused on enthusiasts, offering them a couple of interesting utilities. While we don't expect changes to AMD's chipset lineup until 2010, the 790GX/FX platform handles external graphics cards quite well. In the meantime, the transition to Socket AM3/DDR3 gives a several percent increase in performance to an already quite efficient memory subsystem.

Introduction.
In this review, you will be presented with another processor produced by the company. This processor belongs to the Phenom II family and is the top processor in the family.
The processor has an AM3 socket design, which is backward compatible with the AM2+ socket. Another feature of the AM3 socket design is the use of DDR3 memory type, while motherboards based on AM2+ use only DDR2 memory.

Equipment.

The processor comes in a plastic box, in which it is reliably protected from any damage to the legs.
It is gratifying that even OEM processors have this packaging.

External inspection of the processor.

The appearance of the top processor of the family differs little from other processors of the family. In appearance it is even difficult to distinguish them from Athlon processors, which remain only in memory.

The processor legs are fully compatible with the AM2+ socket, so their location has not changed.

Processor specifications.
1. Model number: 955
2. Processor operating frequency: 3.2GHz
3. Bus speed: 3.6GT/s
4. Cache size: L1 Cache (Instruction + Data)
5. L2 cache: 512KB x4
6. L3 cache: 6MB Shared L3
7. Technological process: 45-nanometer SOI (silicon-on-insulator) technology
8. Memory controller: Integrated double channel with support for DDR2 and DDR3 memory.
9. Memory types supported: PC2 8500 (DDR2-1066); PC2 6400 (DDR2-800); PC2 5300 (DDR2-667); PC2 4200 (DDR2-533); PC2 3200 (DDR2-400) DDR2, PC3-10600 (DDR3-1333MHz) unbuffered
10. Core area: 45nm = 258mm
11. Transistors: 45 nm = 758 million
12. Socket: Socket AM3 - 940-pin organic micro Pin Grid Array (micro-PGA)

Overclocking results.

Using the capabilities of a free multiplier, we managed to conquer 3.79 GHz. Not a record result, but quite aspiring to the status of the statistical average.

Test configuration.
1. Phenom II X4 940.
2. Gigabyte GA-MA790GP-DS4H
3. 4x2 Gb Samsung Original DDR-800.
4. Sapphire HD4850 512 Mb GDDR3.

Tests in which the system participated:
1. Winrar.
2. Sisoft Sandra - arithmetic test.
3. Far Cry 2.
4. 3Dmark 2006.

1. Winrar.
A 500 MB file was archived and the archiving time was calculated.

The higher frequency of the processor allows it to gain a foothold in the second position in terms of performance, which is good news.

2. Sisoft Sandra - arithmetic test.

The processor performance increased, which was to be expected, since this synthetic test is highly sensitive to the processor frequency.

3. Far Cry 2.

The performance of the higher-performing processor remained at the same level as the previous processor.

The new processor practically catches up with Intel's Core I7 processor in terms of performance. But still, this level remains unconquered.

Conclusion.
However, as always, I cannot recommend buying a top-end processor. For more high cost we have mediocre overclocking and performance. At the same time, in terms of price, the kit based on the Phenom II X4 955 catches up with the kit based on the Core I7 920, and is significantly inferior to it in terms of performance.

Prepared the article FireAiD especially for Mega Review.

Diagnostics and diseases. Medicines from A to Z

Processors. Processors Software and Test Setup

Test bench configuration

Testing

Interactive work in 3D packages

Final rendering of 3D scenes

Packing and Unpacking

Audio encoding

Compilation

Mathematical and engineering calculations

Raster graphics

Vector graphics

Video encoding

Office software

Java

Games

Multitasking environment

Total