|
|
|
|
|
AMD Phenom II X4 810 |
|
Join the community - in the OCAU Forums!
|
More Test Results, Conclusions
3dmark Vantage – Performance
I ran the two CPU tests at default settings and default resolution (1280x1024). Intel achieves a pretty comfortable win here. At stock clocks it chalks up an 8% win, despite its 11% clockspeed shortcoming. At 3.15GHz, the Q8200’s 35% overclock translated into a 26% points boost. The Phenom II struggled to scale well in this test, going down by 13% even with the (admittedly small) NB overclock, which in itself brought a miniscule 0.3% improvement.
ConvertXtoDVD
A 700MB XviD was transcoded to DVD using the programs high quality option, with everything else left at default. No codecs were installed, in an attempt to really strain each CPU. Intel’s long held encoding prowess holds true in this test. At factory speeds it only went down by 7%, and once we overclocked it took the lead by a small but still noticeable 6% margin.
lame MP3 encoding
This test involved encoding a 100MB 9 minute, 42 second WAV file (Panacea – Reality RMX, in case anyone’s wondering) into a 20MB VBR MP3 with the following command line options: lame -b 192 -h -m s -V 0 -B 320 -F. It's a pretty similar story to the video encoding, with the Q8200 enjoying a comfortable lead, this time able to eclipse the X4 810 at their out-of-box speeds by almost 3%, and stretching it out to 13% once overclocked.
wprime 2.00
From wprime.net: “Our aim was to make a perfectly threaded benchmark, such that it would consistently use 100% of the CPU while in use. This is achieved by using CPUz to detect the CPU count and use exactly that many processing threads to avoid any performance losses due to multiple threads running on any single physical thread.”
AMD turns the tables in this test, coming up with a 13% lead in the stock frequency comparison, slightly more than the 11% clock speed advantage, which falls to still-healthy 6% margin when both CPU’s are overclocked to the same speed. It seems the benefits of its native quad design are on show here, and bodes well for the future as developers strive to utilise the extra cores on offer in modern CPU’s.
Conclusions:
The Phenom II has brought about a welcome shift in quad core competition, and the latest addition to AMD’s 45nm family, the X4 810, looks to bring the fight to a lower price. Perhaps its best feature is that it will work right now in a (cheaper) AM2+ motherboard, and in future AM3 motherboards, giving purchasers dirt-cheap DDR2 for the time being, and DDR3’s higher bandwidth as it drops in price. The only thing holding it back right now is availability. AMD assures me that it will priced competitively with the Q8200, so when it does hit stores, you can expect it to retail for around AU$270.
Performance wise, the comfortable lead that Intel has enjoyed pretty much across the board for the past few years has have been pegged back substantially, to the point where picking a leader is becoming more and more application-dependant. Overclocking with AMD’s 45nm process has caught a few people by surprise, including me. In comparison to its 65nm predecessor it is far less finicky, runs far cooler, and for extreme cooling it exhibits no ‘cold bug’. If you’ve been holding back on buying a quad for your AMD system, I think the X4 810 is a solid choice.
Thanks to AMD Australia for the Phenom II and to a friend for the Intel CPU and motherboard. If you’ve got any questions or issues regarding my testing, please feel free to PM me on the forums.
|
|
Advertisement:
All original content copyright James Rolfe.
All rights reserved. No reproduction allowed without written permission.
Interested in advertising on OCAU? Contact us for info.
|
|
