Amd black edition vs non black edition: XFX Radeon Rx 580 GTS Black Edition vs Black Core Edition : buildapc

AMD FX-8370E Black Edition review « 7Review






DETAILS

Manufacturer: AMD

Requirements: AM3+ motherboard, DDR3 RAM, 450W minimum

AMD has an odd numbering system going on. You would expect a more recent processor than the FX-9370 to have a higher number, but in fact it’s lower. The FX-8370E came out in September 2014, over a year after the FX-9370, and it’s not like it’s based on another FX-8370 from an older date, as that model came out at the same time.

Check Amazon

Anyway, the FX-8370E has a 3.3GHz base clock speed, 4.3GHz turbo, and is based on Piledriver micro architecture.

This Vishera processor has eight cores and eight threads. As with most of the higher-numbered AMD CPUs, this model comes with 8MB of L2 and L3 cache -1 MB for each core.

7Review earns Amazon affiliate commissions from qualifying purchases. You can support the site directly via Paypal donations ☕. Thank you!






The ‘E’ (Efficiency) and Black Edition branding is something we’ve already come across with the FX-8320E, and again it means that the FX-8370E has a lower TDP of 95W than its sibling FX-8370, which has a TDP of 125W. This version also has a lower base clock speed compared to the non-E version, which offers 4GHz base – both have the same turbo clock speeds, though.

The average overclock speeds using an air cooler are around 4.75GHz, with the average liquid-cooled overclock speeds hitting 5GHz. With our Arctic Liquid Freezer 240, we didn’t get as high as 5GHz. Instead, we stuck with a stable 4.9GHz; there were instability problems when we touched on the 5GHz speeds. Still, 4.9GHz isn’t too shabby.

Our benchmark tests were adequate enough for most users and to be expected for a processor of this kind. The Cinebench R15 singlecore score was a more than reasonable 98 (equal to that of the FX-9370), with a multi-core score of 620. The PassMark version 8 overall score was an equally good 8,290, with a single-core score of 1,530. This puts this processor in second place behind the higher-end FX-9370 – not bad for a more efficient CPU.

Although it’s a capable CPU, the price of around is a little steep for the level of performance offered. Of course, the E-efficiency part is something well worth considering, especially since most AMD FX processors tend to be a little power hungry, even compared to their Intel counterparts. The main problem, though, is that the Piledriver microarchitecture hasn’t really added anything new since it appeared in mid-2012, and the FX-8370E is a prime example of AMD just tuning the processor rather than stretching the manufacturing process to effectively compete with Intel.

Positively speaking, though, the AMD FX-8370E ticks a number of boxes for the vast majority of users. It’ll remain reasonably high in performance ranks for a while yet, and with a good GPU paired with it, it’ll still keep avid gamers happy.


7Review earns Amazon affiliate commissions from qualifying purchases. You can support the site directly via Paypal donations ☕. Thank you!

AMD FX-8320E 3.2GHz Black Edition review « 7Review






DETAILS
• Manufacturer. AMD
• Requirements: AM3+ motherboard, DDR3 RAM, 450W minimum PSU

AMD’s Bulldozer architecture had limited success when it was first launched, mainly due to the lack of support it had at that time and some problems with performance. This gave Intel access to the processor slipstream, so its lead was increased significantly.

Check Amazon

The architecture has matured somewhat since then. The Piledriver microarchitecture we’ve looked at so far has proved to be a worthy and cost-effective counterpart to Intel’s more expensive i-platform.

The FX-8320E is a more modern release from September 2014, with a 3.2GHz base clock speed, 4GHz turbo clock speed and an impressive eight cores and eight threads. There’s 8MB of L2 cache (1MB per core) and 8MB of L3 cache (again, 1MB per core) and a more acceptable TDP of 95W.

The ‘E’ addition to the end of the processor number, in case you’re wondering, denotes a lesser TDP than the standard FX-8320, which has a TDP of 125W. The Black Edition label is always something that tends to confuse people, since it’s something left behind from older AMD CPUs. Basically, the Black Edition used to mean a processor that was unlocked and could therefore be overclocked. Since the FX processors are already unlocked, the Black Edition label is really a little redundant. However, some people regard the Black Edition, even in the FX lineup, as being able to get higher overclock speeds than non-Black Edition CPUs.

On the topic of overclocking, the average aircooled clock speed tends to be around 4.5GHz, with a liquid-cooled clock speed topping 4.8GHz. Using our Arctic Liquid Freezer 240, we did manage to get the processor up to a stable 4.7GHz, but pushing it slightly more revealed some instability.

7Review earns Amazon affiliate commissions from qualifying purchases. You can support the site directly via Paypal donations ☕. Thank you!






As for performance, the FX-8320E is certainly no slouch, especially when it comes to multi-core performance. The Cinebench R15 single-core test score was 93, while the multi-core test score was an impressive 586. Likewise, the PassMark version 8 overall score was an equally good 7,966 while the singlecore score came in at 1,361.

The FX-8320E is a processor that successfully ticks a number of boxes

It’s a worthwhile eight-core processor, with some good overclocking

The FX-8320E is a processor that successfully ticks a number of boxes. It’s reasonably cheap, it has plenty of overclocking support with a stable high number of gigahertz, and it doesn’t consume much power – using the base clock speed, obviously.

Needless to say, the FX-8320E is a capable CPU, which can happily deliver good gaming performance, as well as higher-end computing tasks and everyday duties. While it may not beat the higher-end Intel i5 or i7 CPUs, it’s a really good processor and for that price it’ll beat a similar-costing Intel-based system in performance.


7Review earns Amazon affiliate commissions from qualifying purchases. You can support the site directly via Paypal donations ☕. Thank you!

AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition vs.

Intel Core i3-8100

This content has been written by a website visitor and has been rewarded.

Today we will compare two processors. They are united by the fact that both of them have four honest computing cores and four computing threads. They also have another personal quality in common, they both work in the same office machine. In 2009, a computer based on a top-end AMD processor was purchased, and already in 2020, this office machine was updated with a cheap processor from Intel. Now we will see what has changed in terms of performance, and how we have stepped in 11 years of technology.

AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition is AMD’s ultra-top 2009 processor. The prefix Black Edition means the presence of a free multiplier. At the start of sales, it cost $245. Frequency 3200 MHz. Thermal package 125 watts. Supported memory is DDR3-1333.

recommendations

The Intel Core i3-8100 is Intel’s ultra-budget 2018 processor. The multiplier is locked. At the start of sales, it cost $117, but in 2020 it continues to be sold at the same price. Frequency 3600 MHz. Thermal package 65 watts. Supported memory is DDR4-2400.

Testing was carried out in AIDA64, 3DMARK03, 3DMARK05, 3DMARK06 programs. I also wanted to test in 3DMARK Vantage, but the AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition processor could not pass this test.

Both processors were running Windows 7, since folk craftsmen successfully modify the drivers for the Intel Core i3-8100, since this operating system is no longer officially supported on this generation of processors.

First test — Reading from memory.

The difference in memory speed is clear — different generations. DDR4 RAM was 32% faster in reading. Moreover, DDR3 memory worked in dual-channel mode, and DDR4 in single-channel mode.

The second test is writing to memory.

There was a huge difference in the memory write operation. DDR4 memory was 2. 24 times faster than DDR3.

The third test is memory copying.

Copying in memory is also much faster in DDR4 — 1.48 times.

The fourth test is memory latency.

DDR4 memory latencies are noticeably lower and are only 0.82 of DDR3 latencies.

Fifth test — CPU Queen.

Processor tests are starting. In this test, the Intel Core i3-8100 is 43% faster than the AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition. Noticeable break.

Sixth test — CPU PhotoWorxx.

In this test, the advantage of the Intel Core i3-8100 processor is 58%.

Seventh test — CPU Zlib.

In this test, the processor from the Intel Core i3-8100 breaks away from the AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition by a significant 55%.

Eighth test — CPU AES.

Strange and inexplicable monstrous superiority of Intel Core i3-8100 over AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition. 18 times.

The ninth test is CPU SHA3.

The Intel Core i3-8100 turned out to be almost 1. 9 times faster than the AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition.

Tenth test — FPU Julia.

Another crushing defeat for AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition, the Intel Core i3-8100 was 3.66 times faster.

Eleventh test — FPU Mandel.

In this test, the AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition processor turned out to be exactly 4 times slower than the Intel Core i3-8100 processor.

Twelfth test — FPU SinJulia.

Here the Intel Core i3-8100 processor turned out to be one and a half times faster than the AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition processor.

Thirteenth test — FP32 Ray-trace.

Intel Core i3-8100 did not leave a chance AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition and turned out to be 4.5 times faster.

Fourteenth test — FP64 Ray-trace.

Once again, the Intel Core i3-8100 was faster, this time by 4.7 times.

Fifteenth test — 3DMark03 CPU tests

Overall, the Intel Core i3-8100 processor was 1.9 times faster.

Sixteenth test — 3DMark05 CPU tests

Overall, the Intel Core i3-8100 processor was again 1.9 times faster.

Seventeenth test — 3DMark06 CPU tests

Overall, the Intel Core i3-8100 processor was 1.65 times faster.

Let’s summarize. The cheap and relatively new entry-level Intel Core i3-8100 processor was faster than the flagship but old AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition processor. The old man was unable to come close to the newcomer in any of the tests. And in the CPU AES test, the new processor was 18 times faster. AES is an encryption algorithm adopted as the encryption standard by the US government, so the Intel processor excels at encryption.

But even if you don’t do encryption, in any case, if you have an AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition processor or worse, then you can safely upgrade your system with a cheap Intel Core i3-8100 processor.

This material was written by a site visitor and has been rewarded.

AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition

3DNews Processors and memory AMD processors AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition — for …


The transfer of processors to 45 nm technical process allowed AMD to smoothly
increase their frequency. We study the characteristics, features of overclocking and
the performance of the top model that finally crossed the 3 GHz milestone

⇣ Contents

Today we are going to review the AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition processor. This model is an evolutionary development of the Phenom II processor line, first introduced in early January 2009of the year. Then we considered the Phenom II X4 940 processor. Outwardly, the new product looks quite ordinary, like all other AMD processors for the Socket AM3 platform.

In addition to the ability to work with DDR3 RAM, there are some other differences compared to its predecessor. For clarity, we present a table of characteristics. We also included rivals from the Intel camp, who also participated in the last test.

CPU

AMD Phenom II X4 955

AMD Phenom II X4 940

Intel Core 2 Quad 9300

Intel Core i7 965 EXTREME

CASH L1, KB 4 x 128 4 X 128 4 X 64 4 X 128
Кэш L2, Кб 4 x 512 4 x 512 2 x 3072 4 x 256
Кэш L3, Мб 6 6 8
Technic process, NM 45 45 45 45
ht Speed, MHz 3600 3600 3600 3600 0136

WinVista Ultimate 32-bit WinVista Ultimate 32-bit WinVista Ultimate 32-bit

Below are the readings of the CPU-Z utility, displaying the characteristics of the processor, motherboard and RAM mode.

Acceleration

Since this CPU belongs to the Black Edition series, we used a multiplier increase for overclocking. It was possible to achieve stable operation of the processor at a frequency of 3.8 GHz with a Vcore voltage of 1.425 V.

But a more detailed study of the issue showed that increasing the multiplier is not the only way to improve the performance of a given processor. The fact is that the third-level cache memory of AMD Phenom processors does not work synchronously with the core frequency, but at the «north bridge» frequency — NB Frequency. By default, as you can see from the screenshots above, the motherboard sets this frequency to 2000 MHz, but allows you to change this value up to 6000 MHz. Of course, such high values ​​are unlikely to be achieved by conventional methods. At the same time, increasing the NB frequency to 2600 MHz did not require changing any other settings and increasing voltages. At the same time, we increased the frequency of the HyperTransport bus, also up to 2600 MHz. Note that due to architectural features, the frequency of the HT bus cannot exceed the frequency of the NB.

This screenshot shows the maximum settings that we managed to achieve when overclocking an instance of the AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition processor that fell into our hands.

As can be seen from this screenshot, the frequency of the «north bridge», and hence the third-level cache, is 2600 MHz.

Testing

The video system is represented by a Radeon HD4870X2 card, and the RAM is Corsair DDR2-1066, 2 x 1 Gb. Since the northbridge frequency defaults to 2000 MHz, but can be raised to 2600 MHz relatively easily, we decided to find out how this affects overall performance. As a result for AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition got four combinations of frequencies for the HT bus, northbridge and processor:

  • default mode — frequency HT=NB=2000 MHz, CPU frequency = 3. 2 GHz
  • overclocking L3 cache — frequency HT=NB=2600 MHz, frequency CPU = 3.2 GHz
  • CPU overclock — HT=NB=2000 MHz frequency, CPU frequency = 3.8 GHz
  • maximum mode — frequency HT=NB=2600 MHz, frequency CPU = 3.8 GHz

We will compare AMD Phenom II X4 9 results55 Black Edition with its predecessor, the Phenom II X4 940, and Intel’s Core 2 Quad 9300, running at 3.0 GHz. The charts also show the results of the Intel Core i7 processor at 3.06 GHz, which corresponds to the Core i7 950 model.

The three-channel RAM controller of the Core i7 processor does not leave the rest of the participants a single chance. At the same time, Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition confidently outperforms its predecessor Phenom II X4 940 and Intel Core 2 Quad 9300. As expected, increasing the Phenom II X4 955’s L3 cache frequency has a much better effect on performance than overclocking the cores in this test.

The Intel Core 2 Quad 9300 performs better with memory writes than the Phenom II X4 955 at default frequencies. However, an increase in the NB frequency to 2600 MHz can more than compensate for this lag.

In the copy-to-memory test, the results lined up in the same order as in the read test. However, the increase in Phenom II X4 9 results55 from increasing the frequency of NB here is not as great as before.

The RAM latency test didn’t surprise us either.

In the test of integer operations, Intel processors are in the lead. As for the influence of the third-level cache frequency, it is, for obvious reasons, minimal here.

The PhotoWorxx test also heavily loads the memory subsystem, which leads to a significant gap between Phenom II and Core 2 Quad 9300. In turn, the three-channel Core i7 memory controller leaves no chance for the rest of the test participants.

In the Zlib test, the increased frequency of the L3 cache in Phenom II does not affect the final result at all.

Apparently, the CPU AES test is not able to take advantage of the Core i7 architecture and Hyper Threading, but only responds to the frequency of CPU computing units. Of course, under these conditions, the Phenom II processor overclocked to 3.8 GHz demonstrates the best result.

In the FPU Julia floating point test, Intel processors feel more than confident, and even overclocking the Phenom II does not allow it to come close to the results of the Core 2 Quad 9300 running at a lower frequency.

In the FPU Mandel test, the situation for AMD processors is not as depressing as in the previous case. The Core 2 Quad shows a slightly better result at a lower frequency, and overclocking the Phenom II allows it to take the lead. But the absolute leader, of course, is the Core i7.

The SinJulia FPU test responds well to the presence of HyperThreading and the Core i7 is ahead by a huge margin. Against this background, the spread of the results of the rest of the test participants looks modest and insignificant.

In the built-in WinRar test, AMD processors show better results than the Core 2 Quad 9300, but, of course, they are still very far from the Core i7 level.

Cinebench has always been kind to Intel processors. However, the results shown by AMD processors scale well in frequency. Please note that increasing the L3 cache frequency in this test has the same effect as overclocking the CPU to 3.8 GHz.

The CPU test of the 3DMark Vantage package makes great use of multithreading, so the Core i7 with HyperThreading is out of competition. At the stock frequency, the Phenom II X4 955 is slightly behind the Core 2 Quad 9300 overclocked to 3.0 GHz, and when overclocked, it outperforms it a little. The influence of the L3 cache frequency in this case is minimal.

In the CPU test of the game Crysis at the minimum graphics quality settings, the Core i7 results are ahead, and even overclocking the Phenom II does not allow them to come close to the leader.

However, the transition to mid-level graphics settings radically changes the balance of power. Even at stock frequencies, the Phenom II X4 955 is slightly ahead of the Core i7, not to mention the Core 2 Quad 9300. Further overclocking of the Phenom II increases the gap, and the influence of the L3 cache frequency is clearly visible.

In the High and VeryHigh modes, the same picture is observed, that is, the alignment of forces does not change anymore.

Terminals

In general, testing AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition showed quite expected results. In those cases where applications actively use multithreading and are demanding on the computing power of FPU units, it is naturally inferior to Core i7 processors and even not the top-end Core 2 Quad. On the other hand, the built-in memory controller and large L3 cache perform well in many applications involving the processing of large amounts of data. Well, the example of Crysis shows that even high-tech games do not yet use multithreading to the fullest, but they are sensitive to CPU frequency and low latency of RAM.

It is gratifying that new AMD processors have recently shown good overclocking potential. This indicates the «maturity» of the 45 nm process technology and allows us to hope for the emergence of more productive models in the near future.

Cost AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition in Moscow retail is about $280-300 and may seem a bit overpriced, because the Core i7 920 processor, which has a three-channel memory controller and supports eight computing threads, costs about the same. However, here it is worth considering the cost of switching to a new platform. In the case of Core i7, in addition to the processor, you will have to change the motherboard, cooler and, possibly, RAM. At the same time, the AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition processor can work perfectly in any motherboard equipped with Socket AM2+. If you are already the owner of this platform, then you will only have to replace the processor (well, maybe also the cooler if overclocking is planned). But even if you change the motherboard, its cost will be much lower than the platform based on the Intel X58 chipset. So if you are not looking for records, the AMD Phenom II X4 9 processor55 Black Edition may prove to be a good way to «extend the life» of the Socket AM2+ platform without sacrificing comfort in games and demanding everyday tasks.

— Discuss the material in the conference


⇣ Contents

If you notice an error, select it with the mouse and press CTRL+ENTER.

2023 © All rights reserved