Amd phenom vs turion: Phenom II X3 N830 vs Turion II P520 [in 8 benchmarks]

Comparison AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-56 vs AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) what is better?

Home / CPU / AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-56 vs AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W)

AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-56

2%

DeviceList score

vs

AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W)

3%

DeviceList score

We compared the characteristics of AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-56 and AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) and compiled a list of advantages and a comparison table for you. Find out which one to choose in 2022 year.

AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-56 benefits

Power Consumption (TDP)

33 Wt

-92 Wt (-73.6%) better

vs

125 Wt

AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE (125W) benefits

Winner in comparison

Number of cores

4

2 (100%) better

vs

2

Number of threads

4

2 (100%) better

vs

2

Maximum frequency

3. 4 GGz

1.6 GGz (88.9%) better

vs

1.8 GGz

Manufacturing process technology

45 nm

-45 nm (-50%) better

vs

90 nm



















General information

Type

Для ноутбуков Десктопный

Architecture codename

Trinidad / Tyler Deneb

Number of cores

A large number of cores improves performance in multithreaded applications.
At the moment, increasing the number of processor cores is one of the priorities for increasing performance.

2 4

2 (100%) better

Number of threads

More threads help the cores process information more efficiently. Real performance will be noticeable in very specific tasks (video editing, databases).

2 4

2 (100%) better

Manufacturing process technology

90 nm 45 nm

-45 nm (-50%) better

Crystal size

no data 258 мм2

Transistor count

no data 758 million

Maximum frequency

Processors with high clock speeds perform more calculations per second and thus provide better performance.

1.8 GGz 3.4 GGz

1.6 GGz (88.9%) better

64 bit support

Max number of CPUs in a configuration

no data 1

Socket

S1 AM3

Series

2x AMD Turion 64 no data

Bus

800 МГц no data

L1 Cache

More threads help the cores process information more efficiently. Real performance will be noticeable in very specific tasks (video editing, databases).

no data 128 Кб (на ядро)

L2 Cache

1 Мб 512 Кб (на ядро)

L3 Cache

no data 6 Мб (всего)

Free Multiplier

Power Consumption (TDP)

The calculated heat output shows the average heat output in operation under load,
the larger the value — the more the requirements for cooling and energy consumption increase.

33 Wt

-92 Wt (-73.6%) better

125 Wt




Benchmarks

Passmark

no data 2544

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

2835 no data

3DMark06 CPU

1340 no data
Technologies and extensions


RAM parameters

Supported memory types

no data DDR3
Virtualization technologies
Graphics specifications

Difference Between AMD Athlon and AMD Turion [Updated 2022]

Last Updated : Aug 27, 2022 / By Sandeep Bhandari
/ Fact Checked / 5 mins

Today there exist several electronic devices that help us human beings to perform various tasks. The tasks that are difficult or involve many procedures to complete when done physically can be done in an extremely simple method by using several electronic devices like computers, laptops, calculators, mobile phones etc.

Computers alone have been proven to be helpful to humans in many areas. However, there are various parts that make a computer system complete, and each part performs a different function. A microprocessor in a computer is also known as the brain of the computer. Many companies manufacture microprocessors, and one of them is AMD or Advanced Micro Devices. Two of the products of this company is 1. AMD Athlon and 2. AMD Turion.

AMD Athlon vs AMD Turion

The main difference between AMD Athlon and AMD Turion is the battery and machine life of both the microprocessors. The AMD Athlon has lower battery life as well as lower machine life. On the other hand, the AMD Turion had higher battery life as well as a higher machine life.

The AMD Athlon is a microprocessor that is manufactured by the American company Advanced Micro Devices. The product was released on 23 June 1999. The first processor was built in the early 1990s, and it was a result of the K7 processors that we’re built at that time. Even though the product was released on 23 June 1999, it was made available to people by August 1999.

The AMD Turion is a microprocessor that is manufactured by the company Advanced Micro Devices. There are several other products that were released in this variant by the company. These variants include Turion 64, Turion 64 X2, Turion X2 Ultra etc. Each of these variants has different upgraded functions.

Comparison Table Between AMD Athlon and AMD Turion

Parameters Of Comparison AMD Athlon AMD Turion
Cost Low High
Power Usage High Low
Cache The size of the L2 cache is 256 KB/ core. The size of the L2 cache is 512 KB/ core.
Energy Energy is not saved. Energy is saved more.
Battery life Low High

What is AMD Athlon?

The AMD Athlon is a microprocessor that is manufactured by AMD or Advanced Micro Devices. The Athlon was the first processor that had reached speeds in terms of gigahertz.

The word “Athlon” is derived from an ancient Greek word that literally means contest or reward of a contest.

There are several generations of the Athlon microprocessors. Each variant from the respective generation came up with different functions and updates.

The second generation of the AMD Athlon series was called the Athlon Thunderbird and was released on 4 June 2000. It was also known as “T-Bird”. It had a total of 37 million transistor counts.

The third generation was called Athlon XP. It was released on 9 October 2001. There were six variants of this generation. Each variant had different specifications.

The cache size and the instructions changed accordingly. The Athlon 64 was launched in the year 2005.

It was part of the fourth generation of the Athlon series.

There are several benefits of using AMD Athlon. It can be used for operating spreadsheets, browsing various content on the web, emails and even word processing.

It can also run several applications at a time, and many multimedia features like video, audio can be used. With a high-speed internet or wifi connection, one can also play games online.

What is AMD Turion?

AMD Turion is also a microprocessor. There are several variants of this microprocessor that have been released.

The company added a new feature to this microprocessor where it consumes less power. The RAM capacity is up to 1 terabyte. It also comes with a better battery and machine life.

The Turion 64 is one of the variants of the Turion series. The socket from Advanced Micro Devices called “socket 754” is where it is plugged in.

It is equipped with the L2 cache. The Turion 64 X2 is also a variant that uses the DDR2 memory, and it also uses the Socket S1.

It comes with extra features relevant to the power saving of the device.

Advanced Micro Devices also made processors that were only manufactured and composed for a mobile outlet. The Turion X2 Ultra was the processor that belonged to that category.

This processor had a dual-core, and its thermal power was also designed differently. This processor could switch between different frequencies ranging from one to eight within a fraction of seconds.

The chips that are used in AMD Turion consume less electricity, and thus power is saved. These chips also make sure that the clock speed is reduced.

The hyper transport technology that is used to connect different peripherals and computers is also used in these microprocessors. Because of that, the AMD Turion has higher bandwidth.

Main Differences Between AMD Athlon and AMD Turion

  1. The AMD Athlon has a lower bandwidth. On the other hand, the AMD Turion has higher bandwidth.
  2. The AMD Athlon has better clock speed than the clock speed of AMD Turion.
  3. The clock speed of AMD Athlon ranges between 1.8-2.8 GHz. On the other hand, the clock speed of AMD Turion ranges between 1.46-2.4 GHz.
  4. The AMD Athlon uses more power. On the other hand, the AMD Turion consumes less power.
  5. The costs of AMD Athlon are lower than the costs of AMD Turion.
  6. The machine life of AMD Turion is better than the machine life of AMD Athlon.
  7. The battery life of AMD Turion is better than the battery life of AMD Athlon.
  8. The cache size of AMD Turion is bigger than the cache size of AMD Athlon.
  9. The AMD Athlon was released before AMD Turion.

Conclusion

Both microprocessors, AMD Athlon and AMD Turion, are two of the most used, popular and convenient microprocessors produced by Advanced Micro Devices.

There are several functions and features that are provided by these microprocessors. Many applications can be run by using them.

However, there are several other variants of these products as well. The company releases several variants of the respective series that comes up with even newer and better features. They come up with different upgrades and outgrows the errors from the previous variants.

References

  1. https://www.ece.uvic.ca/~amiralib/courses/AMD.pdf
  2. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=e0SoBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=advanced+micro+devices+microprocessor&ots=g1F1xTiUD5&sig=UtQj7TP7-e_FcaOr-b_T0SBbwKE

Search for «Ask Any Difference» on Google. Rate this post!

[Total: 0]

One request?

I’ve put so much effort writing this blog post to provide value to you. It’ll be very helpful for me, if you consider sharing it on social media or with your friends/family. SHARING IS ♥️

Table of Contents

report this ad

AMD Phenom II X6 1035T vs AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-60


Análisis comparativo de los procesadores AMD Phenom II X6 1035T y AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-60 para todas las características en las siguientes categorías: Esenciales, Desempeño, Memoria, Compatibilidad.
Análisis de desempeño comparativo de procesadores: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s), Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core.

AMD Phenom II X6 1035T

Comprar en Amazon


vs

AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-60

Comprar en Amazon

 

Diferencias

Razones para considerar el AMD Phenom II X6 1035T

  • El CPU es más nuevo: fue lanzado al mercado 2 año(s) 10 mes(es) después
  • 4 más núcleos, ejecuta más aplicaciones a la vez: 6 vs 2
  • Una velocidad de reloj alrededor de 30% más alta: 2.6 GHz vs 2 GHz
  • Un proceso de manufactura más nuevo permite que un procesador sea más poderoso y trabaje a menor temperatura: 45 nm vs 90 / 65 nm
  • 3 veces más caché L1, más datos pueden ser almacenados en el caché L1 para un acceso más rápido luego
  • 3 veces más caché L2, más datos pueden ser almacenados en el caché L2 para un acceso más rápido luego
  • Alrededor de 77% mejor desempeño en PassMark — Single thread mark: 1229 vs 694
  • 4. 9 veces mejor desempeño en PassMark — CPU mark: 2962 vs 606









Fecha de lanzamiento April 2010 vs 4 May 2007
Número de núcleos 6 vs 2
Frecuencia máxima 2.6 GHz vs 2 GHz
Tecnología de proceso de manufactura 45 nm vs 90 / 65 nm
Caché L1 128 KB (per core) vs 256 KB
Caché L2 512 KB (per core) vs 1 MB
PassMark — Single thread mark 1229 vs 694
PassMark — CPU mark 2962 vs 606

Razones para considerar el AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-60

  • 3. 1 veces el consumo de energía típico más bajo: 31 Watt vs 95 Watt


Diseño energético térmico (TDP) 31 Watt vs 95 Watt

Comparar referencias


CPU 1: AMD Phenom II X6 1035T
CPU 2: AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-60



PassMark — Single thread mark

CPU 1
CPU 2


PassMark — CPU mark

CPU 1
CPU 2







Nombre AMD Phenom II X6 1035T AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-60
PassMark — Single thread mark 1229 694
PassMark — CPU mark 2962 606
CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) 5.836
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) 19.107
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 0.388
Geekbench 4 — Single Core

193
Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core

335

Comparar especificaciones


























AMD Phenom II X6 1035T AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-60
Nombre clave de la arquitectura Thuban Trinidad / Tyler
Fecha de lanzamiento April 2010 4 May 2007
Precio de lanzamiento (MSRP) $189
Lugar en calificación por desempeño 1771 2478
Precio ahora $189
Valor/costo (0-100) 7. 27
Segmento vertical Desktop Laptop
Family

AMD Turion
OPN Tray

TMDTL60HAX5DM
Series

AMD Turion 64 X2 Dual-Core Mobile Technology
Soporte de 64 bits
Troquel 346 mm 147 mm
Caché L1 128 KB (per core) 256 KB
Caché L2 512 KB (per core) 1 MB
Caché L3 6144 KB (shared)
Tecnología de proceso de manufactura 45 nm 90 / 65 nm
Frecuencia máxima 2. 6 GHz 2 GHz
Número de núcleos 6 2
Número de transistores 904 million 154 Million
Base frequency

2 GHz
Bus frontal (FSB)

800 MHz
Temperatura máxima del núcleo

95 °C
Número de subprocesos

2
Desbloqueado

Tipos de memorias soportadas DDR3 DDR2
Supported memory frequency

667 MHz
Número máximo de CPUs en la configuración 1
Zócalos soportados AM3 S1
Diseño energético térmico (TDP) 95 Watt 31 Watt

Navegación

Elige un CPU

Compara procesadores

Compara el AMD Phenom II X6 1035T con otros




AMD
Phenom II X6 1035T



vs



AMD
Athlon 64 FX-60




AMD
Phenom II X6 1035T



vs



AMD
Phenom X3 8400




AMD
Phenom II X6 1035T



vs



Intel
Core i5-3470




AMD
Phenom II X6 1035T



vs



Intel
Core i5-3475S




AMD
Phenom II X6 1035T



vs



Intel
Celeron G1630




AMD
Phenom II X6 1035T



vs



AMD
FX-8320E

AMD 65W Quad and Dual Core Processors: Phenom II X4 910e and Athlon II X2 255



Victor Wu


January 26, 2010
AMD, CPU/Processors, Hardware, Reviews & Articles

Leave a comment

The 2. 6GHz quad core processor Phenom II X4 910e and the 3.1GHz dual core processor Athlon II X2 255 are latest AMD processor with 65W maximum TDP. Though they may not be performance leader, they do fit nicely into their appropriate niche.

INTRODUCTION

AMD has made a good come back with the Phenom II processor. Despite the fact that the processor is still not able to compete against Intel Core i7 processors, AMD hangs there and gives a good fight against the Core 2 processors. To stay competitive, AMD has launched the first sub $100 quad core processor and released many low power variant quad core processors.

Today, AMD released a few updates to their current line-up. Today’s launch includes the Phenom II X2 555,the fastest dual-core desktop processor running at 3.2GHz with 80W TDP at $99. It will have unlocked multiplier for the overclocking enthusiasts. Three Athlon chips are also released, a quad core X4 635 clocked at 2.9GHz, a triple-core X3 440 at 3.0GHz, and a dual core X2 255 at 3. 1GHz. The processors are selling at $119, $84, and $74 respectively. Among the three Athlon processors, the X2 255 has a maximum TDP of 65W while the other two processors have max TDP of 95W.

In addition to the 65W Athlon II X2 255, AMD also releases launched the Phenom II X4 910e that is also with 65W max TDP. This processor is a low power quad core processor running at 2.6GHz clock speed and will be selling at $169. AMD has been releasing low power high performance processors ever since the first Phenom processor. Contrasting the 65W maximum TDP to the 125 watts power that is found on the Phenom II X4 965 BE, a whopping 60 watts less power is consumed.

 

All of the processors released today are built with 45 nm SOI with Immersion Lithography process by the Global Foundry.  They support 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, AMD64, Cool and Quiet, NX bit, and AMD-V. We are not going to repeat all of the details on the Phenom II/Athlon II processors as we had previously released an article discussion these features in detail. One thing we do want to mention is that while the Phenom II X2 555 is manufactured with C3 stepping, all other processors are manufactured with C2 stepping.

AMD also told us that all of these processors will work with their upcoming 800 series motherboards. They are of course compatible with current AMD3 based boards but as always, make sure you have the latest BIOS before install the processor into your board. We tested both AMD CPU’s Athlon Phenom II 910, and the Athlon II X2 255 with an older BIOS on a Gigabyte MA785GMT-UD2H motherboard and we had no issues on getting the computer to boot up.

CPU Name Cores Clock L2/L3 Cache HT Bus Socket TDP Price
AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE 4 3.4GHz 2+6MB 4000MHz AM3 140W $179
AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE 4 3. 2GHz 2+6MB 4000MHz AM3 125W $165
AMD Phenom II X4 945 4 3.0GHz 2+6MB 4000MHz AM3 125W $159
AMD Phenom II X4 925 4 2.8GHz 2+6MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $139
AMD Phenom II X4 910e 4 2.6GHz  2+6MB  4000MHz AM3 65W $169
AMD Phenom II X4 905e 4 2.5GHz 2+6MB 4000MHz AM3 65W $175
AMD Phenom II X4 810 4 2.6GHz 2+4MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $139
AMD Phenom II X3 720BE 3 2.8GHz 1.5+6MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $104
AMD Phenom II X3 710 3 2.6GHz 1.5+6MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $99
AMD Phenom II X3 705e 3 2. 5GHz 1.5+6MB 4000MHz AM3 65W $119
AMD Phenom II X2 555 2 3.2GHz   1+6MB 4000MHz AM3 80W $99
AMD Phenom II X2 550 2 3.1GHz 1+6MB 4000MHz AM3 80W $91
AMD Athlon II X4 635 4 2.9GHz 2MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $120
AMD Athlon II X4 630 4 2.8GHz 2MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $102
AMD Athlon II X4 620 4 2.6GHz 2MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $99
AMD Athlon II X3 440 3 3.0GHz 1.5MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $84
AMD Athlon II X3 435 3 2.9GHz 1.5MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $75
AMD Athlon II X3 425 3 2. 7GHz 1.5MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $72
AMD Athlon II X2 255 2 3.1GHz 2MB 4000MHz AM3  65W $75
AMD Athlon II X2 250 2 3.0GHz 2MB 4000MHz AM3 65W $65
AMD Athlon II X2 245 2 2.9GHz 2MB 4000MHz AM3 65W $61
AMD Athlon II X2 240 2 2.8GHz 2MB 4000MHz AM3 65W $53

PICTURES AND IMPRESSIONS

We have received two 65W dual core Athlon II X2 255 and the quad core Phenom II X4 910e processors for review today. We are going to put them through our tests to see the performance differences from both 65W processors.

Model Number

X2 255

X4 910e

Core Frequency:

3. 1 GHz

2.6 GHz

Number of Cores:

2

4

OPN# 

ADX255OCK23GQ

HD910EOCK4DGM

L1 Cache Sizes:  

64K of L1 instruction and 64K of L1 data cache per core (256KB total L1 per processor)

64K of L1 instruction and 64K of L1 data cache per core (512KB total L1 per processor)

L2 Cache Sizes:

1MB of L2 data cache per core (2MB total L2 per processor)

512KB of L2 data cache per core (2MB total L2 per processor)

L3 Cache Sizes:

None

6MB (shared)

Memory Controller Type:

Integrated 128-bit wide memory controller *

Integrated 128-bit wide memory controller *

Memory Controller Speed:

2. 0GHz with Dual Dynamic Power Management

2.0GHz with Dual Dynamic Power Management

Types of Memory Supported:

Support for unregistered DIMMs up to PC2-6400 (DDR2-800MHz) -AND- PC3-8500 (DDR3-1066MHz)

Support for unregistered DIMMs up to PC2-8500 (DDR2-1066MHz) -AND- PC3-10600 (DDR3-1333MHz)

HyperTransport 3.0 Specification:

One 16-bit/16-bit link @ up to 4.0GHz full duplex (2.0GHz x2)

One 16-bit/16-bit link @ up to 4.0GHz full duplex (2.0GHz x2)

Total Processor-to-System Bandwidth:

Up to 33.1GB/s bandwidth

Up to 28.8GB/s bandwidth

Up to 37. 3GB/s bandwidth

Up to 33.1GB/s bandwidth

Packaging:

Socket AM3 938-pin organic micro pin grid array (micro-PGA)

Socket AM3 938-pin organic micro pin grid array (micro-PGA)

Fab location: 

GLOBALFOUNDARIES Fab 1 module 1 in Dresden, Germany

GLOBALFOUNDARIES Fab 1 module 1 in Dresden, Germany

Approximate Die Size: 

117.5 mm2

258 mm2

Approximate Transistor count: 

~ 234 million

~ 758 million

Max Temp:

74o Celsius

71o Celsius

Process Technology:

45-nanometer DSL SOI (silicon-on-insulator) technology

45-nanometer DSL SOI (silicon-on-insulator) technology

Core Voltage:

0. 85-1.425V

0.85-1.25V

Max TDP:  

65 Watts

65 Watts

AMD Codename:   

“Regor”

“Deneb”

MSRP

$74

$169

*Note: configurable for dual 64-bit channels for simultaneous read/writes

The Athlon X2 carries a retail price of $74, which makes it an ideal processor for HTPC system due to its lower power consumption. Pair it up with the AMD’s 785G chipset and you will be able to get a system setup with less than $300. The CPU is in direct competition against the Intel Pentium E6300 processors which also has a maximum TDP of 65W and clocked at 2. 8GHz. While we do not have the Pentium E6300 to compare, we would expect the the performance would be very comparable between the two chips. The advantage of going with the AMD platform is future upgradability as oppose to the aging socket 775 from Intel. Of course, an alternative would be going with the Clarkdale based system with the Intel Pentium G6950 which coincidentally also runs at 2.8GHz but this processor is selling at $20 more than the Athlon X2.

The Phenom II X4 910e is in direct competition against Intel’s Core 2 Quad Q8400 processor. AMD currently has the Phenom X4 905e clocked at 2.5GHz that is in the similar price range, so we would expect the 910e to take over the 905e once the company’s stock runs out.

As you can see that in addition to the numbers of cores differences, the memory supports are also different between the dual and quad core processor. The dual-core processor officially supports DDR2 up to 800MHz and DDR3 up to 1066MHz while the quad core processor supports DDR2 up to 1066MHz and DDR3 up to 1333MHz.

Testing & Methodology

To test the AMD Phenom X4 910e and Athlon II X2 25,  we did a fresh load of Windows 7 Ultimate and updated the OS with all the patches and hotfixes we could find for it. We downloaded all the latest drivers and the Latest BIOS from the motherboard manufacture’s site and installed the drivers and flashed the BIOS. Each test was ran a total of 3 times and the average of those three tests reported here.

Hardware Common To All The Test Rigs

  • Cooler Master UCP 900W
  • Seagate Barracuda 7200.12
  • Gigabyte GV-N26SO-896i
  • Thermalright SI-128
  • DVD/RW  ROM

Platform Specific Hardware

  • AMD Phenom II X4 910e and Athlon X2 255
  • Gigabyte MA785GMT-UD2H
  • Kingston HyperX DDR3 1600 (Run at 1066) 4 GB Kit
  • Intel Core i7 920
  • Gigabyte EX58-UP4P
  • Kingston HyperX DDR3 1600 (Run at 1333) 6 GB Kit
  • For more information on the Asus M3A78-T you can visit the Asus Website Here
  • Intel Q9300 (OC to 3. 0GHz)
  • Gigabyte EX38-DS4
  • OCZ Reaper 1066 (Run at 1066) 4GBKit
  • For more information on the Asus M3A78-T you can visit the Asus Website Here
  • Phenom 2 X4 810 CPU Equipment
  • Asus M3A78-T
  • Crucial Ballistix DDR2 1066 4 GB Kit
  • For more information on the Asus M3A78-T you can visit the Asus Website Here
  • Intel E8400 Equipment
  • Gigabyte EP45-Extreme
  • Crucial Ballistix DDR2 1066 4 GB Kit
  • For more information on the Gigabyte EP45-Extreme you can read our review Here

     

Test Suite

Benchmarks

Excel 2007

Blender

SiSoft SANDRA XII Professional SP2

Everest Ultimate Edition v. 5.0

AutoMKV

WinRar v. 3.71

POVRay

3DMark Vantage

Like we mentioned we ran each test 3 times on each CPU then averaged the results, the average is reported here. Some tests we ran more than 3 times and in that case we averaged all the results. If we happened to get a seriously out of range result we discarded to anomalous result and repeated the test.

We kept most of the Synthetic Benchmarks but added a lot of real life benchmarks. This is a trend you will see a lot more of at Bjorn3D. For Winrar we added a workload test consisting of compressing 5 large images, Excel we run calculations on two large spreadsheets, Blender we render a wire frame photo, and AutoMKV we encode another large video file. While synthetic benches are good, real life testing with heavily multi-threaded applications that take advantage of more than 2 cores is long overdue. These applications are heavily multi-threaded and well coded to take advantage of the available cores.

Everest Ultimate

“EVEREST Ultimate Edition is an industry leading system diagnostics and benchmarking solution for enthusiasts PC users, based on the award-winning EVEREST Technology. During system optimizations and tweaking it provides essential system and overclock information, advanced hardware monitoring and diagnostics capabilities to check the effects of the applied settings. CPU, FPU and memory benchmarks are available to measure the actual system performance and compare it to previous states or other systems. Furthermore, complete software, operating system and security information makes EVEREST Ultimate Edition a comprehensive system diagnostics tool that offers a total of 100 pages of information about your PC.”

CPU AES

This integer benchmark measures CPU performance using AES (a.k.a. Rijndael) data encryption. It utilizes Vincent Rijmen, Antoon Bosselaers and Paulo Barreto’s public domain C code in ECB mode.

CPU AES test uses only the basic x86 instructions, the test consumes 48 MB memory, and it is Hyper Threading, multi-processor (SMP) and multi-core (CMP) aware.

The Phenom II X4 910e comes in a tad ahead of the Phenom II X4 810 that is clocked at 100 MHz lower with 273 points higher in the Everest AES test. The Athlon II X2 255 also comes in at 175 points higher than the 3.0GHz Intel E8400.

CPU PhotoWorxx

This integer benchmark performs different common tasks used during digital photo processing.

It performs the following tasks on a very large RGB image:

• Fill

• Flip

• Rotate90R (rotate 90 degrees CW)

• Rotate90L (rotate 90 degrees CCW)

• Random (fill the image with random colored pixels)

• RGB2BW (color to black & white conversion)

• Difference

• Crop

This benchmark stresses the integer arithmetic and multiplication execution units of the CPU and also the memory subsystem.

CPU PhotoWorxx test uses only the basic x86 instructions, and it is Hyper Threading, multi-processor (SMP) and multi-core (CMP) aware.

In the Photoworxx test, none of the AMD processors tested are not able to compete against the E8400. Here we see the Phenom II X4 910e actually comes in a few points lower than the similar clocked X4 810.

Surprisingly,we see the Intel Q9300 actually takes the last place among the CPU tested.

CPU Queen

This simple integer benchmark focuses on the branch prediction capabilities and the misprediction penalties of the CPU. It finds the solutions for the classic “Queens problem” on a 10 by 10 sized chessboard.

CPU Queen test uses integer MMX, SSE2 and SSSE3 optimizations. It consumes less than 1 MB system memory and it is Hyper Threading, multi-processor (SMP) and multi-core (CMP) aware.

No major surprise here. The Phenom II X4 910e once again comes in a few points higher than the X4 810. The Athlon II X2 255 comes in 10$ lower than the Intel E8400.

CPU ZLib

In Everest’s CPU Zlib we see the slightly higher clockspeed Athlon II X2 255 actually scored 7% higher than the E8400.  Once again, there is a little differences among the Phenom X4 810 and 910e.

Everest Memory Suite

The DDR2 memory read speed is simply not able to compete against the DDR3. The Athlon II X2 255 comes in a bit of a surprise with 8241 points, just under the Phenom II X4 810. Oddly enough, the Phenom II X4 910e’s memory read performance is not as good as the X4 810.

Once again, the Athlon II X2 255 shows an excellent memory write performance than any of the AMD quad core processors. It is very possible the lack of L3 cache actually speeds up the memory read and write performance. Here the X4 910e edgest out the X4 810 in the write test.

Again, the X2 255 comes just behind the X4 810. However, the X4 910e once again falls behind the other AMD CPUs.

AMD seems to performs a little better with the memory latency than the Intel counterparts.

Cinebench

“CINEBENCH is a real-world test suite that assesses your computer’s performance capabilities. MAXON CINEBENCH is based on MAXON’s award-winning animation software, CINEMA 4D, which is used extensively by studios and production houses worldwide for 3D content creation. MAXON software has been used in blockbuster movies such as Spider-Man, Star Wars, The Chronicles of Narnia and many more. MAXON CINEBENCH runs several tests on your computer to measure the performance of the main processor and the graphics card under real world circumstances. The benchmark application makes use of up to 16 CPUs or CPU cores and is available for Windows (32-bit and 64-Bit) and Macintosh (PPC and Intel-based). The resulting values among different operating systems are 100% comparable and therefore very useful with regard to purchasing decision-making. It can also be used as a marketing tool for hardware vendors or simply to compare hardware among colleagues or friends.”

The Athlon II X2 255 edgest out the E8400 in the Cinebench test. Unfortunately, the faster clockspeed Q9300 actually performs a tad higher than the X4 910e.

We ran the Cinebench suite six or seven times to confirm this result, we got a slightly higher CPU ratio from the newer Phenom 2 X4 965 and even that small performance increase might be the reason why the lower TDP chip comes out slightly ahead in most of the testing.

 

Looking at the CPU ratio, we can see the X4 910e has a slightly (0.01) higher ratio than the X4 810. It also is able to yield 0.09 points higher than our overclocked Q9300. The Athlon II X2 255 also beats out the Intel E8400 with 0.01 higher points.

 

WinRar v. 3.71

This module in WinRar generates random data, which contains specially introduced redundancy, increasing the load to both the processor and memory. Data is then passed through RAR compression and decompression algorithms, and the output of the decompression algorithm is compared to the source data. If any differences are found, WinRar then reports “Errors found – Yes” in the command window. WinRar displays a size of processed data and compression speed, current and resulting, in kilobytes per second.

 

In our WinRar test, we can see the Intel dominated the test. Here the Q9300 is able to finish the task at 30 seconds faster than the Phenom X4 910e.

Sisoft Sandra

“SiSoftware Sandra (the System ANalyser, Diagnostic and Reporting Assistant) is an information & diagnostic utility. It should provide most of the information (including undocumented) you need to know about your hardware, software and other devices whether hardware or software. It works along the lines of other Windows utilities, however it tries to go beyond them and show you more of what’s really going on. Giving the user the ability to draw comparisons at both a high and low-level. You can get information about the CPU, chipset, video adapter, ports, printers, sound card, memory, network, Windows internals, AGP, PCI, PCI-X, PCIe (PCI Express), database, USB, USB2, 1394/Firewire, etc.”

Sandra shows fairly similar result as what we have observed with the Everest. Here we can see the X2 255 comes behind the E8400. The X4 910e actually has a better result with the Weststone benchmark while lags slightly in the Drystone benchmark when compared against the X4 810.

 

No surprise here again we see the same trends as the processor arithmetic benchmark. Here, however, the X4 910e actually yields a better number in both the float and integer tests. As expected, the Intel system simply has a better result with the multimedia tests but we can see that the quad core AMD processor actually is able to edge out the dual core E8400 slightly.

 

Just as what we have observed, the Phenom X4 910e somehow has a much worse memory performance than other AMD processors. It is possible that future BIOS updates could bring the performance on par with other AMD processors.

POV-Ray 3.7 Beta 25

The Persistence of Vision Ray-Tracer was developed from DKBTrace 2.12 (written by David K. Buck and Aaron A. Collins) by a bunch of people (called the POV-Team) in their spare time. It is a high-quality, totally free tool for creating stunning three-dimensional graphics. It is available in official versions for Windows, Mac OS/Mac OS X and i86 Linux. The POV-Ray package includes detailed instructions on using the ray-tracer and creating scenes. Many stunning scenes are included with POV-Ray so you can start creating images immediately when you get the package. These scenes can be modified so you do not have to start from scratch. In addition to the pre-defined scenes, a large library of pre-defined shapes and materials is provided. You can include these shapes and materials in your own scenes by just including the library file name at the top of your scene file, and by using the shape or material name in your scene. Since this is free software feel free to download this version and try it out on your own.

Some of you might have seen version 3.6 of POV-Ray, the biggest difference between 3.6 and 3.7 Beta 25 is SMP (symmetric multiprocessing) support, which means that POVRay can take advantage of as many cores as your CPU has. On Single vs Dual CPU systems the speed almost doubles.

 

Phenom X4 910e simply is not able to offer the same performance as the faster clockspeed Athlon X2 255 or the Intel Q9300.

Microsoft Excel 2007

Monte Carlo Black-Scholes Option Pricing Test

Microsoft Excel is the widely known and most used spreadsheet application for the manipulation and calculation for number crunching. With Excel you can analyze and share information on small scale or the largest scale you can imagine. We’ve seen spreadsheets in every day use that contain literally tens of thousands of numbers and hundreds of equations. Bjorn3D uses two tests in Excel to determine CPU and Motherboard performance.

 

Although the X4 910e comes in 10 seconds behind the overclocked Q9300, it doubles the time needed to complete the task compare to the dual core X2 255.

Big Number Crunch

This workload is from a 6.2 MB spreadsheet and executes about 28,000 sets of calculations. It uses the most common calculations in Excel, addition, subtraction, division, rounding and Square Root. It also analyzes statistical functions such as Min, Max Median, and Average. The calculations are done after the spreadsheet with a large data set is updated with new values and must recalculate a large number of data points.

We feel the addition of Excel to our real life benchmarks is an important one. Excel has a huge user base and is one of the most widely used applications worldwide. While Excel will run on almost and modern machine it’s the CPU performance that will determine how fast it runs making it a good application for judging CPU and Motherboard performance.

Similar to what we have seen with the Monte Carlo test, the Big Number Crunch test shows the X4 910e is able to complete the task in half of the time for the X2 255 to complete.

Photodex ProShow Gold 3.2

ProShow Gold allows you to combine videos and photos and music to create slide shows, depending on the end user results can be spectacular. The application allows the end user to share photos and memories with friends in a unique and spectacular way, the different formats supported are, DVD, PC and Web. Still Photos are brought to life by adding motion effects. Supported effects include, Pan, Zoom, and rotate. You can also add captions and over 280 transition effects.

 

Similarly, the Pro Show Gold also shows that despite running at 2. 6GHz clockspeed, the X4 910e is able to complete the job in half of the time for the 3.1GHz X2 255. Although, Intel still dominates the multimedia encoding tasks with the Q9300 able to finish the job at a tad more than half of the time for the X4 910e.

AutoMKV 0.95c

AutoMKV is an application aiming for easy media conversion between various media formats using various third party codecs. With improved internet speed and enhanced computing power, more users are interested in encoding to different media formats for their various multimedia needs. With AutoMKV and x264 codec, a freeware H.264 encoder, users can easily create media files. For more information and to obtain AutoMKV 0.95c and AviSynth* 2.5.7, please visit (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=134478). We create a media file using AutoMKV and x264 codec. The input file used in the document is a raw 416 MB 720×480 DV file and the output is a 253MB H.264 media file.

Finally, a test where the current Phenom II actually shines over the older Quad core processor. Here we can see the X4 910e actually is able to finish the job in 1.12 minutes faster than the Intel Q9300 overclocked at 3.0GHz. The X2 255, on the other hand, takes close to 30 minutes to finish the job.

Blender

Blender is a free open source 3D content creation suite that is available for various operating systems. The application is popular among many independent animation studios and game makers. For more information, please visit http://www.blender.org/.

The workload consists of a ~6.9 MB character model of a flying squirrel. Due to time constraints we don’t render the entire image which would be time consuming and rather pointless except to yield larger benchmark numbers. A portion of the image, the right arm is what we render, it’s a large enough portion to show differences in CPU performance, yet small enough that we don’t have to grind through a 45 minute Render waiting for a single result.

Again, the X4 910e is simply not able to compete against the Q9300. It takes 18.41 seconds more to finish the job.

oVERCLOCKING

Athlon II X2 255

 

Overclocking the Athlon II 255 is fairly easy because of the higher CPU multiplier. Only a selected black edition processor from AMD has unlocked multiplier which can use to overclock by simply keeping the FSB. For the rest of the processors, one must raise the FSB in order to overclock it. The Athlon II 255’s x15.5 CPU multiplier would be easier to achieve that magical number for people with a board that may have limited FSB adjustments.

 

I started by raising the FSB to 240 without raise any voltage adjustment and passes Prime95 without any hitch. This yields a healthy 3720 GHz. At 250MHz, the system boots up into BIOS but crashes during Windows loading. Increasing the voltage allows me to boot into Windows without any issue but the system will not pass Prime95 test and crashes.  

3.72GHz overclocking result is fairly consistent with what we have observed with most of the AMD’s latest Athlon II processors. It’s likely that with more time and maybe a different board, it’s possible to extract a few extra clockspeed out of the CPU but we feel that 3.7GHz for a $74 processor is not a bad deal.

Phenom II X4 910e

Being that the Phenom II X4 is a quad core processor, we sort of expect it to overclock less than the dual core Athlon II. With the stock voltage of 1.136v, we were able to overclock the processor to 3.1GHz (240MHz FSB).

 

Knowing that Phenom processors often have voltage of 1.4v, we were curious of the processor’s overclocking ability if we raise the voltage. Thus, we increase the voltage to 1.35v, that is 0.1v higher than AMD’s official maximum voltage so we feel that 1.35v is a safe number to use. At this voltage, we were able to overclock the processor to 3.7GHz without much sweat by simply raising the FSB to 285MHz. Because of the fact that the X4 910e has locked multiplier, to achieve higher clockspeed, it would probably require a board that is capable of 300+ MHz FSB.

 

We do feel that 3.7GHz from the stock 2.6GHz is nothing to complain about.

Power Consumption

Feature/Specification IDLE (WATTS) LOAD (WATTS)

AMD Athlon II X2 255

114

172

AMD Phenom II X4 910e (stock voltage)

125

178

AMD Phenom II X4 910e (1.35v, 3.7GHz)

133

221

Core i7 920

149

220

We were quite surprised to see the power consumption for the Phenom II X4 910e’s power consumption. Despite the fact that we already know that AMD must have hand-picked the processor that will fit the 65W TDP envelope for their power efficient performance quad core, we are not prepared to see its power consumption to be within 10 watts of the dual-core processor. We were quite surprised to see that the processor only consumes 10 watts more under idle and 6 watts higher than the dual core Athlon II X2 255. Even when overclocked to 3.1GHz which is the same speed as the Athlon II X2 255, the processor consumes about the same wattage in both idle and load.

We thought it would be interesting to also compare the power consumption of the overclocked Phenom II X4 910e. As you can see, with 1.35v, the processor consumes 10 watts more under idle and 43 watts more under load.

CONCLUSION

The AMD Phenom II X4 910e is an interesting chip. This processor costs about the same as the faster chip with higher power consumption. The 60 watts of power saved by the Phenom II X4 910e may not seem a lot, it will adds up over the lifespan of the ownership. The power saved will roughly translates to approximately $20~30 saved in an year that itself would pay the extra cost that need to be invested into the chip. Even when it is overclocked to 3.1GHz, the chip still consumes roughly the same wattage as it is running at 2.6GHz. It also has a potential to overclock to faster speed with higher voltage if you don’t care about the power efficiency.

Something we did not mention about the chip is that it runs really cool. So, we think that this is an excellent chip for HTPC and multi-tasking environment due to its power consumption and good general performance.

The Athlon II X2 255 does not gear much excitement but the chip is at least able to compete with the Intel E8400 in most areas with the exception of the multimedia tasks. The chip faces a stiff competition against the Intel Core i3 but then again, the Core i3 are a tad more expensive than the X2 255. The cheapest Core i3 that we can find online is Pentium G6950 that is selling at $96. 99, $20 more than the X2 255. When we fact in the motherboard costs, the Core i3 system will come in generally $30~$40 more than the Athlon based system. The Athlon X2 255’s performance is pretty good and it overclocks fairly easily to 3.7GHz without much adjustments. We think this is clearly a good winner for budget system.

Ultimately, we think today’s AMD launch will not generate much excitements among enthusiasts but AMD seem to find a nice niche for multi-takers with power saving mind with their Phenom II X4 910e. In addition, the Athlon II X2 255 would fits nicely in a budget system where it will do almost all day to day tasks without much issue.

OUR VERDICT: AMD Phenom II X4 910e
Performance 8
Value 7
Quality 9
Features 8
Innovation 8

We are using an addition to our scoring system to provide additional feedback beyond a flat score. Please note that the final score isn’t an aggregate average of the rating system.

Total 8

Runs cool

65W TDP

Overclock very well (with higher voltage).

Quad core

Price

 

 

 

 

Summary: The Phenom II X4 910e is an excellent choice for the multi-tasker and HTPC users who need a powerful quad core processor while keeping the power consumption low.

OUR VERDICT: AMD Athlon II X2 255
Performance 7
Value 9
Quality 9
Features 8
Innovation 8

We are using an addition to our scoring system to provide additional feedback beyond a flat score. Please note that the final score isn’t an aggregate average of the rating system.

Total 8

Runs cool

65W TDP

Price 

Still not catching up with Intel in the multimedia tasks

 

 

 

 

 

Summary: The Athlon II X2 255 is an excellent choice for budget system with it balanced cost and performance ratio.

CPU Name Cores Clock L2/L3 Cache HT Bus Socket TDP Price
AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE 4 3.4GHz 2+6MB 4000MHz AM3 140W $179
AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE 4 3. 2GHz 2+6MB 4000MHz AM3 125W $165
AMD Phenom II X4 945 4 3.0GHz 2+6MB 4000MHz AM3 125W $159
AMD Phenom II X4 925 4 2.8GHz 2+6MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $139
AMD Phenom II X4 910e 4 2.6GHz  2+6MB  4000MHz AM3 65W $169
AMD Phenom II X4 905e 4 2.5GHz 2+6MB 4000MHz AM3 65W $175
AMD Phenom II X4 810 4 2.6GHz 2+4MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $139
AMD Phenom II X3 720BE 3 2.8GHz 1.5+6MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $104
AMD Phenom II X3 710 3 2.6GHz 1.5+6MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $99
AMD Phenom II X3 705e 3 2. 5GHz 1.5+6MB 4000MHz AM3 65W $119
AMD Phenom II X2 555 2 3.2GHz   1+6MB 4000MHz AM3 80W $99
AMD Phenom II X2 550 2 3.1GHz 1+6MB 4000MHz AM3 80W $91
AMD Athlon II X4 635 4 2.9GHz 2MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $120
AMD Athlon II X4 630 4 2.8GHz 2MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $102
AMD Athlon II X4 620 4 2.6GHz 2MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $99
AMD Athlon II X3 440 3 3.0GHz 1.5MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $84
AMD Athlon II X3 435 3 2.9GHz 1.5MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $75
AMD Athlon II X3 425 3 2. 7GHz 1.5MB 4000MHz AM3 95W $72
AMD Athlon II X2 255 2 3.1GHz 2MB 4000MHz AM3  65W $75
AMD Athlon II X2 250 2 3.0GHz 2MB 4000MHz AM3 65W $65
AMD Athlon II X2 245 2 2.9GHz 2MB 4000MHz AM3 65W $61
AMD Athlon II X2 240 2 2.8GHz 2MB 4000MHz AM3 65W $53

Overclocking and Test Setup : Battling for the AM3 Crown — AMD 790FX Motherboard Shootout

  • Page 1 of 10 — The Spider AM3 MakeoverPage 2 of 10 — The ASUS M4A79T DeluxePage 3 of 10 — The Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5PPage 4 of 10 — The MSI 790FX-GD70Page 5 of 10 — Overclocking and Test SetupPage 6 of 10 — Results — SYSmark 2007 PreviewPage 7 of 10 — Results — Futuremark PCMark05 ProPage 8 of 10 — Results — SPECviewperf 9. 0Page 9 of 10 — Results — AquaMark3Page 10 of 10 — Conclusion

    Page 5 of 10 — Overclocking and Test Setup

  • Next >

Overclocking

While the latest Phenom II X3 720 ‘Black Edition’ has been heralded by many as the best overclocking Phenom II processor currently, our test system was using a Phenom II X4 810 instead. However, this shouldn’t matter because when it comes to assessing our motherboards, we’re more concerned about the upper limits of the FSB, which starts at 200MHz for these boards. Hence, we’ll be lowering multipliers and ratios to ensure that the CPU, HyperTransport bus and memory are not the bottlenecks during our overclocking tests.

All three boards are able to support higher speed DDR3 memory than the official DDR3-1333. Of course, none of that came into play since we kept our memory ratios to the minimum. We have also included some of the relevant BIOS settings for the three boards, which you can see below, are actually very similar.








Overclocking Settings and Results
O/C Settings ASUS M4A79T Deluxe Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5P MSI 790FX-GD70
Base Clock 200 — 600 200 — 500 200 — 600
CPU Ratio 8 — 13 5 — 13 4 -13
PCIe Frequency 100 — 150 100 — 200 100 — 200
Memory Ratio/Multiplier Auto, 800, 1066, 1333, 1600 Auto, 800, 1066, 1333, 1600 Auto, 1:2, 1:2. 66, 1:3.33, 1:4
Voltage Adjustment

  • CPU Voltage: 0.800 to 1.475V (0.0125V steps)
  • DRAM Voltage: 1.5 to 2.5V (0.02V steps)
  • NB Voltage: 1.10 to 1.40V (0.02V steps)
  • HT Voltage: 1.20 to 1.50V (0.02V steps)
  • SB Voltage: 1.20 to 1.35V (0.015V steps)

  • CPU Voltage: -0.60 to +0.60
  • DRAM Voltage: +0.05 to +0.750V (0.02V steps)
  • SB/HT Voltage: Normal, +0.1, +0.2, +0.3V
  • NB Voltage: Normal, +0.1, +0.2, +0.3V

  • CPU Voltage: 0.98 to 1.93V (0.01V steps)
  • Memory Voltage: 1. 19 to 2.40V (0.01V steps)
  • NB Voltage: 0.75 to 1.83V (0.01V steps)
  • SB Voltage: 0.85 to 1.83 (0.01V steps)
  • CPU-NB Voltage: 0.88 to 1.83V (0.01V steps)
Maximum OC (FSB) 325MHz 320MHz 320MHz (313MHz with Auto O.C)

The resultant FSB overclocks achieved for the three boards turned out to be similar, with the boards failing to boot into Windows at around the 320MHz mark. The useful Auto overclocking utility on the MSI came close to that maximum with its 313MHz result.

Test Setup

Since our main objective is to find out the best AMD 790FX from the three contenders, we will only be comparing them among themselves, as our previous testing of the chipset was done on a different test bed and hence not directly comparable. The following configuration was used:-

  • AMD Phenom II X4 810 (2.6GHz)
  • 2 x 1GB Kingston HyperX DDR3-1333 @ 7-7-20 CAS 7.0
  • Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 200GB SATA hard disk drive (one single NTFS partition)
  • ASUS GeForce 9800 GTX 512MB — with ForceWare 178.24 drivers
  • AMD SouthBridge Driver 8.522
  • Microsoft Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 (and DirectX 9.0c)

The following benchmarks were used to determine the performance of the AMD 790FX motherboards:-

  • BAPco SYSmark 2007 (with Patch 4)
  • Futuremark PCMark05 (ver 120)
  • SPECviewperf 9.0
  • AquaMark3\
  • Page 1 of 10 — The Spider AM3 MakeoverPage 2 of 10 — The ASUS M4A79T DeluxePage 3 of 10 — The Gigabyte GA-MA790FXT-UD5PPage 4 of 10 — The MSI 790FX-GD70Page 5 of 10 — Overclocking and Test SetupPage 6 of 10 — Results — SYSmark 2007 PreviewPage 7 of 10 — Results — Futuremark PCMark05 ProPage 8 of 10 — Results — SPECviewperf 9. 0Page 9 of 10 — Results — AquaMark3Page 10 of 10 — Conclusion

    Page 5 of 10 — Overclocking and Test Setup

  • Next >

Join HWZ’s Telegram channel here and catch all the latest tech news!

Our articles may contain affiliate links. If you buy through these links, we may earn a small commission.

The End of Proprietary Big Iron ISA? – OSnews

OSNews recently linked to several articles on the two remaining big iron RISC based platforms still alive and kicking, something of great interest to myself both in a professional capacity and for personal reasons (I wouldn’t be an avid OSNews reader and poster if I wasn’t into non mainstream architectures).

Introduction

During a thread in which several of us where discussing the new POWER7 architecture, user Tyler Durden (I like the name by the way), somebody with vastly more knowledge of RISC processors than I, pointed out the following:

The development of a high end processor and its associated fab technology will soon reach the billion dollar mark.

$1 billion! Ouch!

Basically what this means is that, as these systems are niche market, high end RISC based systems are coming to a point where it’s no longer possible to sell enough systems to recoup the cost of developing them. This, for me, is going to cause countless issues on a professional level and if you’ve ever worked with one of these systems in a mission critical environment, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about.

Why care?

You would most certainly be forgiven for asking what’s so special about these systems anyway? Well, for me, it comes down to several issues. As both the hardware and (usually) the OS of these systems are developed and/or certified by the same company, including device drivers, there is a tight integration that only the Mac can provide in the consumer space and although this in itself is nothing special, it does allow for enterprise level features you can’t get in anywhere else. One such feature is the ability to identify a faulty device, be that an expansion card, DIMM or even a CPU, power off that specific device or port in which it’s plugged, open the system and replace the faulty component without powering down the system, rebooting or even entering single user mode. Obviously these features are exceptionally handy when dealing with high-availability applications and services but to me they both pale in comparison to their virtualization capabilities.

Current Intel and AMD processors support virtualization features, using VT-x and AMD-V respectively, but these features are only for dealing with X86 CPU virtualization, an ISA where it has been notoriously difficult to implement full virtualization. What systems like POWER and SPARC have been using for quite some time is a system called I/O virtualization, also known as IOMMU.

IOMMU: A brief introduction.

IOMMUs basically perform the same function as a CPU MMUs, in that they map virtual memory address ranges to physical address ranges and though they can be used for several other functions, such as providing memory protection in the case of faulty devices, their main use is to provide hardware I/O virtualization capabilities. Devices on the PCIe bus do almost all of their communication with other devices via main memory, a process know as DMA. If a hypervisor where to allow a guest OS direct access to a PCIe device’s memory space, this could possibly overwrite a) the data from any other guest OS that has access to this device, causing corruption, and more importantly b) data from the host system, almost certainly taking the system down. Currently, on X86 platforms, this is avoided by using either dedicated devices or
paravitualization, a technique that uses software to emulate a device which is then presented to the guest OS. If you’ve ever created a virtual harddrive file for use with VirtualBox, QEMU or VMWare you are basically using paravirtualization to present the semblance of a harddrive to the guest OS.

The problem with paravirtualization is that as it adds a translation layer between the hardware and the OS, it incurs a performance penalty. This is why up until recently, 3d acceleration for guest operating systems was infeasible. With hardware I/O virtualization, this performance penalty is drastically reduced as the only added step is the translation from virtual to physical memory address range that the IOMMU performs, allowing you to allocate the same device to multiple guest operating systems as though they where running directly on the hardware.

For many devices, this isn’t actually a problem as they are already “virtualized”, for example RAID arrays in which you allocate a LUN to a specific host, but what if you have a multiport network adapter or HBA where you wish to map a specific port to a specific guest OS? You can buy multiple adapters but this approach is limited by the amount of expansion slots available.

What is often done with X86 systems in these situations is that these ports are bound together, paravirtualized and allocated to however many guest operating systems using a process called multiplexing. Usually, communication is then subsequently VLAN or VSAN tagged. This is far from perfect as not only do you incur the performance penalty of paravirtualization while also reducing flexibility, there is the added costs due to needing advanced infrastructure to support these setups. Although VLAN tagging is common as muck these days, VSAN tagging is still a relatively new technology and last I heard, only implemented on top of the range CISCO fibre directors.

So what am I going to do when it becomes too expensive to produce my beloved high-end RISC systems? Am I going to have to deal with inelegant systems to continue to provide my customers with virtualization? Thankfully, AMD and Intel have both come up with solutions.

Enter AMD-Vi and VT-d.

Not long after Mr. Durden made the above comment which prompted me to start thinking about this situation, Peter Bright published a guide to I/O virtualization on Ars Technica in which he describes the new IOMMUs being developed for the X86 platform, AMD’s AMD-Vi and Intel’s VT-d. Basically these systems provide what has been provided by the likes of POWER and SPARC based systems for years now, the ability to present a guest OS with hardware I/O virtualization. Not only will this allow big-iron UNIX vendors to produce high-end systems using commodity hardware, it will allow one to one hardware access to graphics cards, allowing guest operating systems to take full advantage of the latest 3d capabilities. As long as the guest OS has the required drivers, you can now ditch that dual boot system and startup a virtual machine for all your gaming needs.

Some of you may have noticed there is a slight, to say the least, problem with this kind of setup. If hardware virtualization is one to one, aren’t we back in the same memory range corruption boat as before? What if two guest operating systems attempt to access the same device at the same time? To avoid any problems that could arise from one to one hardware access yet still retain multiplexing capabilities, devices on the PCIe bus need to present the same set of functions multiple times. Although this sounds like a lot of work, something like it has already been implemented. Currently, PCIe devices already support multiple functions but so far this has been used to support different hardware capabilities. With the adoption of IOMMUs by both AMD and Intel, it will be possible to develop devices that are virtualization aware, thereby presenting several guest operating systems with exactly the same set of functions.

…and finally.

Although it could be some time yet before we see the demise of high-end custom ISA, the writing is on the wall and although I’m going to miss these systems, if only for their novelty value, I’m going to leave you with another quote from Mr. Durden:

…the processor is not the main value proposition for their systems. The actual system, and its integration is.

Amen to that, brother!

For further reading on virutalization, check out the following links:

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_virtualization
  • http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/08/virtualization-guide-1.ars/
  • http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/12/virtualization-guide-2.ars/
  • http://arstechnica.com/business/guides/2010/02/io-virtualization.ars/
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtualization

About the author:
I’m a systems engineer and administrator mostly dealing with UNIX and Linux systems for the financial sector.

Compare AMD Phenom II P960 vs AMD Turion II P540

9000 . Champlain 9 kernel microarchitecture0017

Similarities
AMD Phenom II P960 AMD Turion II P540
both processors from AMD
Two processors were released in 2010 g
Two processors support 64-bit set of commands
CPU have the same level of level L2 2048 KB

processor family

9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 9000 AMD Turion

Phenom II P960 belongs to the Phenom Turion II P540 belongs to the Turion processor family
Phenom II P960 belongs to the Phenom II processor line Turion II P540 belongs to the Turion II processor line
FSB data AMD Phenom II P960 — 1800 MHz 16-bit HyperTransport (3. 6 GT/s) system bus AMD Turion II P540 — 1800 MHz 16-bit HT (3.6 GT/s)
Phenom II P960 significantly outperforms the number of cores, 4 vs. 2 ve cores, 2 vs 4
Phenom II P960 confidently outperforms in terms of number of threads, 4 vs. 2 Turion II P540 loses a lot in terms of number of threads, 2 vs. 4 clock speed, 1800 MHz vs. 2400 MHz Turion II P540 confidently outperforms 2400 MHz vs. 1800 MHz Phenom II P960 competitor
The L1 cache size of the Phenom II P960 CPU is much larger than that of the Turion II P540 and is equal to 512 KB The L1 cache size of the Turion II P540 processor is much smaller than that of the Phenom II P960 and is equal to 256 KB

Comparison of instructions and technologies

Energy saving technologies
Technology or instruction name AMD Phenom II P960 AMD Turion II P540 Brief description
PowerNow! PowerNow! idle frequency reduction technology.
Standard extension set
Technology or instruction name AMD Phenom II P960 AMD Turion II P540 Short description
MMX (Multimedia Extensions) Multimedia extensions.
SSE (Streaming SIMD Extensions) Processor streaming SIMD extension.
SSE2 (Streaming SIMD Extensions 2) Streaming SIMD Processor Extension 2.
SSE3 (Streaming SIMD Extensions 3) Processor Streaming SIMD Extension 3.
SSE4A (Streaming SIMD Extensions 4A) Processor Streaming SIMD 4A Extension.
AMD64 64-bit microprocessor architecture developed by AMD.
3DNow! Optional MMX extension for AMD processors.
Safety Technologies
Technology or instruction name AMD Phenom II P960 AMD Turion II P540 Short description
EVP (Enhanced Virus Protection) Improved virus protection.
Virtualization technologies
Technology or instruction name AMD Phenom II P960 AMD Turion II P540 Short description
AMD-V AMD-V Virtualization Technology.

Benchmarks

Overall performance rating

The rating is calculated according to the formula, taking into account the data: test results in benchmarks, frequency, temperature data, overclocking technologies, instructions, year of release, socket, number of cores, threads, architecture, and much more. The results of the overall rating showed that Phenom II P960 is superior in most respects to its rival Turion II P540. The Turion II P540 barely scores 1097.84 points compared to its competitor.

PassMark CPU Mark

All of our CPUs passed PassMark tests. Perhaps the most popular benchmark tester in Runet. The benchmark includes a large set of tests for a large-scale assessment of the performance of a personal computer, including the CPU. Diagnostics include extended instruction checking, compression, encryption, integer calculations, game physics calculations, floating point calculations, single-threaded and multi-threaded tests. At the same time, it is possible to compare indicators with other configurations in the database. Performance Test showed a clear advantage of the Phenom II P9 processor60 (1394 points) over the Turion II P540 (884 points). The Turion II P540, with a score of 884, clearly loses in this test.

Cinebench 10 (32 bit) Single-threaded test

The basic performance testing mode is multi-level reflections, spatial light sources, working with light, global illumination simulation, photorealistic rendering of a 3D scene, and procedural shaders. The ray tracing method is used. Single-Core — uses only one core and one thread for rendering in its test. Released by MAXON, it was based on the Cinema 4D 3D editor. This benchmark for processors and video cards is already obsolete today. The test is performed under the operating systems Mac, Windows. It is possible to check many processor systems. The Turion II P540 scored a landslide victory in the Cinebench 10 single thread test with a score of 2160. And here is his rival Phenom II P960 fell sharply behind with 1542 points.

Cinebench 10 (32bit) Multi-thread test

Multi-Thread is another test method in Cinebench R10 benchmark that uses multi-thread and multi-core test method. It is important to note that the number of threads in this version is limited to sixteen. In the Cinebench R10 multi-threaded test, the Phenom II P960 processor scored 5354 points, thus far ahead of the competitor. In turn, the Turion II P540 received a much lower score: 4181 points.

Cinebench 11.5 (64-bit) Multi-threaded test

64-bit version of the CINEBENCH R11.5 test — which has the ability to load the CPU to 100, including all cores and threads. Different from older versions, 64 threads are supported here. Testing the Phenom II P960 in the Cinebench R11.5 benchmark gave 2 points, which indicates a higher performance of this model. While the Turion II P540 scores 1.45, it is way behind its rival in this test.

Cinebench 11.5 (64-bit) Single-threaded test

Excellent multifunctional Cinebench version R11.5 from Maxon. In this case, Single-Core tests are performed using one core and one thread. His tests to this day have not lost their relevance. The checks still use the ray tracing process, rendering a highly detailed 3D room with a large number of translucent and glass and crystal balls. The result of the check is the «number of frames per second» parameter. The Cinebench 11.5 Single-Core Turion II P540 single-threaded test showed high performance compared to the competitor, with a score of 0.6 points. But the Phenom II P9 itself60, scoring 0.42 points in this test, is far behind it.

Cinebench 15 (64-bit) Multi-Threaded Benchmark

Multi-Thread Cinebench 15 version — tests your build to the fullest, showing everything it can do. Ideal for testing modern multi-threaded processors from AMD and Intel. can use 256 threads. All CPU cores and threads are involved in rendering highly detailed 3D objects. The Phenom II P960, with a score of 169.24 points, unconditionally scores more in the Multi-Core test from Cinebench 15. While its rival Turion II P540 is far behind with a score of 121.8 points in the test.

Cinebench 15 (64-bit) Single-threaded test

Cinebench Release 15 is the most up-to-date tester from the Finns from Maxon. The system is being checked: both video cards and processors. For the CPU, the result of the analysis will be the number of PTS points, and for video cards, the number of frames per second FPS. A complex 3D scene is rendered with many highly detailed objects, light sources and reflections. In the Single Core version of the program, one thread is involved in rendering. Turion II P540 single-threaded Cinebench R15 test shows high performance, 61.89score. Compared to it, its competitor Phenom II P960 fails this test with a score of 43.1 points.

Geekbench 4.0 (64-bit) Multi-threaded test

This is a 64-bit multi-threaded Geekbench 4 benchmark. It is the wide cross-platform support for various operating systems and devices that makes Geekbench tests the most common now. In Geekbench 4, the 64-bit multi-core Phenom II P960 processor scored 3708, which is significantly higher than the Turion II P540. In this test, the Turion II P540 scores an extremely low score of 2754 — compared to the Phenom II P960.

Geekbench 4.0 (64-bit) Single-threaded test

This benchmark, like its earlier versions, can still be run on systems running Windows, Mac OS, Linux. The Single-Core version uses one thread. For the first time in this version of the benchmark, smartphones running iOS and Android operating systems are also supported. The latest single-threaded version of Geekbench 4 for testing laptops and desktop PCs. The Turion II P540 scored the highest in Geekbench 4’s single-thread test with a score of 1497 points, but not much ahead of the opponent. But the Phenom II P960 itself also showed a good score of 1245 points, slightly losing its place to the Turion II P540.

Geekbench 3 (32 bit) Multi-threaded test

The Multi Core version of Geekbench 3 — can allow you to make a strong synthetic test of your assembly and show the stability of your system.

Geekbench 3 (32 bit) Single-threaded test

The Geekbench cross-platform tester is often used to evaluate the system under Mac, but it can be run on both Windows and Linux. The basic purpose is to check the performance of processors. The Single Core version of the benchmark only loads one CPU core and one thread.

Geekbench 2

We have archived up to 200 CPU models that have test results in this benchmark. A very outdated version of the Geekbench 2 tester. Today there are newer options: the fourth and 5v.

X264 HD 4.0 Pass 1

In essence, this is a practical test of processor speed by transcoding HD video files to the new H.264 format or the so-called MPEG 4 x264 codec. The frame rate processed per second is the result of the check. This test is faster than Pass 2, as the calculation is done at a constant speed. Ideal test for multi-core and multi-thread processors. Phenom II P9 MPEG 4 video processing speed60 is much higher at 45.62 FPS. But the Turion II P540 did a poor job, its speed was 33.91 FPS.

X264 HD 4.0 Pass 2

This is a slightly different, slower test based on video file compression. As a result, we get a higher quality video file. The same MPEG4 x264 codec is used, but encoding is done at a variable rate. You need to understand that a real task is being performed, and the x264 codec is used in a large number of encoders. The final figure is also determined by frames per second. For this reason, the test results really reflect the performance of the platform. When measuring the speed of video file compression by the Phenom II P9 processor60 in mpeg4 format — the result was 10.72 FPS. Its rival Turion II P540 showed a much lower video encoding rate compared to it — 7.65 FPS.

3DMark06 CPU

Processors are tested in 2 ways: the game AI does pathfinding and the other test simulates the system using PhysX. Written on the basis of DirectX 9.0 by the Finnish team Futuremark. This test is often used by gamers and fans of overclocking the system and overclockers. Benchmark program for evaluating the performance of the video system, and CPU. Phenom II P960 showed itself a little faster in tests for game physics, pathfinding, while gaining up to 2519 points. The Turion II P540 also coped with these tasks, showing a good result of 2047 points.

3DMark Fire Strike Physics

Nearly 200 processors on our website have 3DMark Physics data. It presents a math test that makes game physics calculations.

WinRAR 4.0

Everyone knows the file archiver. The speed of compression into the RAR format was checked, for these purposes large amounts of random data were taken. The resulting speed during compression «kilobytes per second» — this is the result of the test. The checks were made under the control of the Windows operating system. Phenom II P960 has a clear advantage in WinRAR data compression and packing speed, the result of file processing was 1059. 39 Kb/s. The Turion II P540 was far behind it, the speed of which did not exceed 819.13 Kb / s.

TrueCrypt AES

This is not really a tester, but the results of its use can give an estimate of system performance. Our site demonstrates the results of encryption speed in gigabytes per second using the AES algorithm. It has built-in ability to encrypt disk partitions on the fly. Unfortunately, support for this program was stopped on May 28, 2014. The program can run on various operating systems: Mac OS X, Linux and Windows.

Compare AMD Phenom II P960 vs AMD Turion II P520

CREED CREATE Champlain

9000 9001 The technical process of these processor models is 45 nanometers

similarities
AMD Phenom II P960 AMD Turion II P520
Both processors from the AMD
both processors appeared in 2010 g
Two processors belong to the mobile type
Two processors operate on the Socket S1 CPU Two CPU The same tire speed 1800 MHZ 16 -bypertransport (3. 6 GT/S)
Both CPUs have the same number of transistors: 234 million
The heat dissipation of both CPUs reaches 25 watts
Channel for working with RAM for both CPU 2
Two CPU models support 64-bit set of commands
Processors have the same cache of the second 2048 kilobaits

9000 Differences AMD Phenom II P960 AMD Turion II P520 Phenom II P960 belongs to the Phenom processor family Turion II P520 belongs to the Turion 9 processor family0017 Phenom II P960 belongs to the Phenom II Turion II P520 processor line belongs to the Turion II

-4-29. II P520 is seriously outperformed in terms of number of cores, 2 vs. 4 Phenom II P960 is seriously outperformed in terms of number of threads, 4 vs. 2 Turion II P520 is seriously inferior in terms of number of threads, 2 vs. 4 Phenom II P960 is significantly inferior in terms of clock frequency, 1800 MHz in comparison with 23 MEGAGERTS Turion II P520 seriously exceeds in frequency, 2300 megartz vs. 1800 meters —

9000 Kesh L1 The P960 is significantly larger compared to the Turion II P520 and equals 512 KB The L1 cache of the Turion II P520 CPU is much smaller compared to the Phenom II P960 and is 256 Kilobytes

Comparison of instructions and technologies

Energy saving technologies
Technology or instruction name AMD Phenom II P960 AMD Turion II P520 Short description
PowerNow! PowerNow! idle frequency reduction technology.
Standard extension set
Technology or instruction name AMD Phenom II P960 AMD Turion II P520 Short description
MMX (Multimedia Extensions) Multimedia extensions.
SSE (Streaming SIMD Extensions) Processor streaming SIMD extension.
SSE2 (Streaming SIMD Extensions 2) Streaming SIMD Processor Extension 2.
SSE3 (Streaming SIMD Extensions 3) Streaming SIMD Processor Extension 3.
SSE4A (Streaming SIMD Extensions 4A) Processor Streaming SIMD 4A Extension.
AMD64 64-bit microprocessor architecture developed by AMD.
3DNow! Optional MMX extension for AMD processors.
Safety Technology
Technology or instruction name AMD Phenom II P960 AMD Turion II P520 Short description
EVP (Enhanced Virus Protection) Improved virus protection.
Virtualization technologies
Technology or instruction name AMD Phenom II P960 AMD Turion II P520 Short description
AMD-V AMD-V Virtualization Technology.

Benchmarks

Overall performance rating

The main rating can be calculated by an internal formula, taking into account indicators such as — test results in all programs, socket, instructions, number of cores, threads, clock speed, overclocking technologies, year of manufacture, temperature data, architecture, and much more. The results of the overall rating showed that the Phenom II P960 surpasses its rival Turion II P520 in most parameters. The Turion II P520 barely scores 1016.78 points compared to its competitor.

PassMark CPU Mark

All of our CPUs have been tested in PassMark. Probably the most popular benchmark on the web. It includes a large set of tests for a large-scale evaluation of PC performance, in particular the CPU. Among which are encryption, extended instruction checking, integer calculations, game physics calculations, compression, floating point calculations, single-threaded and multi-threaded tests. In this case, you can compare the received data with other configurations in the database. Performance Test showed a clear advantage of the Phenom II P9 processor60 (1394 points) over the Turion II P520 (790 points). Turion II P520 with a score of 790 clearly loses in this test.

Cinebench 10 (32bit) Single thread test

Released by MAXON, it is based on the Cinema 4D 3D editor. The main mode of passing performance tests is working with light, imitation of global illumination, multilevel reflections, photorealistic rendering of 3D scenes, spatial light sources, and procedural shaders. It is possible to test multi-processor systems. Single in its test uses only one thread for rendering and one core. The test is carried out in Windows, Mac OS X. The ray tracing method is used. This benchmark for testing processors and video cards is already outdated by now. The Turion II P520 scored a landslide victory in the Cinebench 10 single thread test with a score of 2047. And here is his rival Phenom II P960 fell sharply behind with 1542 points.

Cinebench 10 (32bit) Multi-thread test

Multi-Thread is another test method in Cinebench R10 that uses multi-thread and multi-core test method. It is important to note that the possible number of threads in this version of the program is limited to 16. In the Cinebench R10 multi-threaded test, the Phenom II P960 processor scored 5354 points, thus far ahead of the competitor. In turn — Turion II P520 received a much lower score: 3969 points.

Cinebench 11.5 (64-bit) Multi-thread test

64 bit version of CINEBENCH R11.5 test, it can load the CPU to all 100 including all cores and threads. Differs from older versions, 64 threads are supported here. Testing the Phenom II P960 in the Cinebench R11.5 benchmark gave 2 points, which indicates a higher performance of this model. While the Turion II P520 scores 1.3, well behind its rival in this test.

Cinebench 11.5 (64-bit) Single-threaded test

Excellent fully functional Cinebench R11. 5 from Maxon. In this case, Single-Core tests are performed by using one thread and one core. His tests to this day have not lost their relevance. In testing, the ray tracing process is still used, rendering a complex 3D space with many crystalline and glass and translucent balls. Validation metrics — FPS setting. The Turion II P520’s single-threaded Cinebench 11.5 Single-Core test results showed strong performance compared to the competitor, with a score of 0.56. But the Phenom II P9 itself60, scoring 0.42 points in this test, is far behind it.

Cinebench 15 (64-bit) Multi-core test

Multi Core version of Cinebench 15 — will test your system completely, demonstrating what it is capable of. Enables all CPU cores and threads to render highly detailed 3D objects. The program is suitable for testing new multi-threaded processors from Intel and AMD. it is capable of using 256 computing threads. Phenom II P960 with a score of 169.24 points, unconditionally scores more points in the Multi-Core test from Cinebench 15. While its competitor Turion II P520 is far behind with 114.02 points in the test.

Cinebench 15 (64-bit) Single-threaded test

Cinebench Release R15 is the most up-to-date benchmark from Finns from Maxon. It conducts system testing: both CPU and video cards. For processors, the result of the analysis will be the value of PTS points, and for graphics processors, the value of frames per second FPS. A complex 3D scene is being rendered with a large number of lights, objects and reflections. In this version of the Single Core program, one thread is used in rendering. A single-threaded test of the Turion II P520 processor in Cinebench R15 shows its high performance, with a score of 57.4 points. Compared to it, its competitor Phenom II P960 fails this test with a score of 43.1.

Geekbench 4.0 (64-bit) Multi-threaded benchmark

This is already a 64-bit multi-threaded Geekbench 4 test. It’s cross-platform OS and device support makes Geekbench’s most valuable tests to date. In Geekbench 4, the 64-bit multi-core Phenom II P960 processor scored 3708, which is significantly higher than the Turion II P520. In this test, the Turion II P520 scores an extremely low score of 2715 — compared to the Phenom II P960.

Geekbench 4.0 (64-bit) Single Thread

The latest single thread version of Geekbench 4 for testing laptops and desktops. For the first time ever, iOS and Android mobile devices are also supported in this release. Single-Core check uses 1 thread. The program, like its earlier versions, can be run on systems running Linux, Mac OS, Windows. The Turion II P520 scored higher in Geekbench 4’s single-thread test, with a score of 1551, but not far ahead of the competition. But the Phenom II P9 itself60 also showed a good score of 1245 points, slightly losing ground to the Turion II P520.

Geekbench 3 (32 bit) Multi-Thread Benchmark

Geekbench 3’s Multi-Thread Benchmark — can allow you to perform a powerful stress test on your build and show how your system performs.

Geekbench 3 (32 bit) Single-threaded test

The 32-bit version of the test loads only one thread and one processor core. Cross-platform Geekbench is often used to benchmark Mac systems, but it works on both Windows and Linux. The basic purpose is to test the performance of the CPU.

Geekbench 2

We have about 200 processor models in our archive that have test results in this program. An outdated version of the Geekbench 2 benchmark. Today there are newer options: 5v and the fourth.

X264 HD 4.0 Pass 1

In essence, this is a test in practice of system performance by transcoding HD files to H.264 format or the so-called MPEG 4 x264 codec. The number of frames processed per second is the result of the check. This test is faster than Pass 2 because it renders at a constant rate. This is the most appropriate test for multi-core and multi-thread processors. Phenom II P9 MPEG 4 video processing speed60 is much higher at 45. 62 FPS. But the Turion II P520 did a poor job, its speed was 31.69 FPS.

X264 HD 4.0 Pass 2

This is a slightly different, slower test based on video file compression. The same MPEG4 x264 codec is used, but encoding is done at a variable rate. As a result, we get a better quality video file. It is important to understand that a completely real task is being simulated, and the x264 codec is used in a large number of encoders. The resulting value is also defined in frames per second. Therefore, the test results realistically reflect the performance of the platform. When measuring the speed of video file compression by the Phenom II P9 processor60 in mpeg4 format — the result was 10.72 FPS. Its rival Turion II P520 showed a much lower video encoding rate compared to it — 7.15 FPS.

3DMark06 CPU

CPUs are tested in two ways: the AI ​​does the pathfinding and the other test emulates the physics engine using PhysX. Benchmark to evaluate the performance of the video system, and CPU. This test is very often used by gamers and overclockers and those who like to overclock processors. Based on DirectX 9.0 by Futuremark. The Phenom II P960 performed significantly faster in the pathfinding and game physics tests, with a score of 2519. The processor Turion II P520 coped worse with this task with 1863 points.

3DMark Fire Strike Physics

Approximately 200 CPUs on our website have 3DMark FSP data. It includes a test that makes calculations in game physics.

WinRAR 4.0

A familiar file archiver. Checks were made under the control of Windows. The compression speed was tested by the RAR algorithm, for these purposes huge amounts of random data were generated. The resulting speed in the process of compression «kilobytes per second» — this is the test indicator. Phenom II P960 has a clear advantage in WinRAR data compression and packing speed, the result of file processing was 1059.39 Kb/s. The Turion II P520 was far behind it, the speed of which did not exceed 758. 13 Kb / s.

TrueCrypt AES

This is not exactly a benchmark, but the results of its use can help evaluate the performance of the entire computer. Unfortunately support for this program was stopped in 2014. Our site presents the results of encryption speed in Gb / s using the AES algorithm. The program has a built-in function of instant encryption of disk partitions. It can run on various operating systems: Mac OS X, Linux and Windows.

Compare AMD Phenom II X4 N930 and AMD Turion II P520

Comparative analysis of AMD Phenom II X4 N930 and AMD Turion II P520 processors according to all known characteristics in the categories: General Information, Performance, Compatibility, Technology, Virtualization.
Analysis of processor performance by benchmarks: PassMark — Single thread mark, PassMark — CPU mark, Geekbench 4 — Single Core, Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core.

AMD Phenom II X4 N930

versus

AMD Turion II P520

9000 L1 cache is 4 times larger, which means more data can be stored in it for quick access

  • PassMark — CPU mark performance is 2 times larger: 1558 vs 778
  • Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core performance about 83% better: 890 vs 486
  • Number of cores 4 vs 2
    Number of threads 4 vs 2
    Level 1 cache 512 KB vs 128 KB
    PassMark — CPU mark 1558 vs 778
    Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core 890 vs 486

    Reasons to choose AMD Turion II P520

    • About 15% more clock speed: 2. 3 GHz vs 2 GHz
    • About 40% less power consumption: 25 Watt vs 35 Watt 9085 Single threadMark7
    • Benchmark performance PassMark7
    • about 5% more: 870 vs 825
    • Geekbench 4 — Single Core performance about 17% faster: 268 vs 229
    Maximum frequency 2.3 GHz vs 2 GHz
    Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt vs 35 Watt
    PassMark — Single thread mark 870 vs 825
    Geekbench 4 — Single Core 268 vs 229

    Benchmark comparison

    CPU 1: AMD Phenom II X4 N930
    CPU 2: AMD Turion II P520

    PassMark — Single thread mark
    CPU 1
    CPU 2
    PassMark — CPU mark
    CPU 1
    CPU 2
    Geekbench 4 — Single Core
    CPU 1
    CPU 2
    Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core
    CPU 1
    CPU 2
    Name AMD Phenom II X4 N930 AMD Turion II P520
    PassMark — Single thread mark 825 870
    PassMark — CPU mark 1558 778
    Geekbench 4 — Single Core 229 268
    Geekbench 4 — Multi-Core 890 486

    Performance comparison

    AMD Phenom II X4 N930 AMD Turion II P520
    Architecture name Champlain Champlain
    Production date 12 May 2010 12 May 2010
    Place in the ranking 2277 2278
    Series 4x AMD Phenom II AMD Turion II
    Applicability Laptop Laptop
    Support 64 bit
    System bus (FSB) 3600 MHz 3600 MHz
    Level 1 cache 512KB 128KB
    Level 2 cache 2048KB 2048KB
    Process 45nm 45 nm
    Maximum frequency 2GHz 2. 3 GHz
    Number of cores 4 2
    Number of threads 4 2
    Supported sockets S1 S1 (S1g4)
    Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 25 Watt
    VirusProtect
    AMD Virtualization (AMD-V™)

    AMD Turion II M500 vs AMD Phenom II X4 P940 — VsRank

    Benefits
    General information
    Specifications
    Integrated video core Advanced technologies
    Cinebench tests Other tests

    AMD Turion II M500

    AMD Turion II M500 lost!

    Number of points: 4740

    AMD Phenom II X4 P940

    AMD Phenom II X4 P940 won!

    Number of points: 5744

    1. +500 MHz CPU clock advantage
    2. 2 more cores
    3. 2 more threads
    4. +1 MB advantage of L2 cache
    5. 10W less power consumption

    Information about the AMD Turion II M500 and AMD Phenom II X4 P940 series and architecture, as well as the release date of the processors.

    Turion II

    Phenom II X4

    Caspian

    2200 MHz

    1700 MHz

    Leader — Intel Core i7-10810U 4900 MHz

    2MB

    Leader — AMD Epyc 7702P (32)

    35W

    25W

    Leader — AMD Epyc 7h22 (280)

    45 nm

    45 nm

    Leader — AMD Ryzen 93900X (7)

    Integrated graphics processor specifications. Support for 4K, clock speed, as well as the amount of video core memory.

    Iris Pro Graphics P580

    Iris Pro Graphics P580

    350 MHz

    350 MHz

    Leader — Intel Core i7-8706G (931)

    1. 15 GHz

    1.15 GHz

    Leader — AMD Ryzen 7 4800H 2 MHz

    64GB

    64GB

    Leader — Intel Xeon E-2176G (128)

    4096×[email protected]

    4096×[email protected]

    AMD Turion II M500

    AMD Phenom II X4 P940

    12_1

    12_1

    4.4

    4.4

    Processor support for modern technologies such as multi-threading, Turbo mode, AES encryption algorithm, and x86 AVX command set extension.

    AMD Turion II M500

    AMD Phenom II X4 P940

    AMD Turion II M500

    AMD Phenom II X4 P940

    AMD Turion II M500

    AMD Phenom II X4 P940

    AMD Turion II M500

    AMD Phenom II X4 P940

    AMD Turion II M500

    AMD Phenom II X4 P940

    The Cinebench benchmark is a widely known and free test of computer performance (processor and video card). The program was developed on the basis of MAXON Cinema 4D — a professional application for creating 3D animation.

    1.21

    No data

    Leader — Intel Core i9-9980XE (41)

    3591

    No data

    Leader — Intel Core i9-9980XE (61667)

    1864.5

    No data

    Leader — Intel Core i5-8500 (8606)

    A range of benchmarks including 3DMark06 CPU, SuperPI, Octane and many other benchmarks.

    1756

    No data

    Leader — AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (106435)

    36. 3

    No data

    Leader — Intel Core i9-9900KS (7)

    1929.1

    No data

    Leader — Intel Core i9-10980XE (410)

    34.75

    No data

    Leader — Intel Core i9-9980XE (2)

    1124.31

    No data

    Leader — AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX (38)

    Comparison AMD Turion II M520 vs AMD Phenom II X4 N970 which is better?

    Home / Processor / AMD Turion II M520 vs AMD Phenom II X4 N

    2. 3 GHz

    0.1 GHz (4.5%) better than

    vs

    2.2 GHz

    Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

    1955

    94 (5.1%) better than

    vs

    1861

    Benefits AMD Phenom II X4 N970

    Comparison Winner

    Core

    4

    2 (100%) better than

    vs

    2

    threads

    4

    2 (100%) better than

    vs

    2

    Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

    6811

    3057 (81.4%) better than

    vs

    3754

    3DMark06 CPU

    3043

    1204 (65. 5%) better than

    vs

    1839

    General

    Type

    Notebook For laptops

    Architecture code name

    Caspian Champlain

    Cores

    A large number of cores improves performance in multi-threaded applications.
    At the moment, increasing the number of processor cores is one of the priorities for increasing performance.

    2 4

    2 (100%) better than

    Threads

    More threads help the cores process information more efficiently. Real performance will be noticeable in very specific tasks (video editing, databases).

    2 4

    2 (100%) better than

    Process

    45 nm 45 nm

    Maximum frequency

    Faster clocked processors perform more calculations per second and thus provide better performance.

    2.3GHz

    Better than

    at 0.1 GHz (4.5%)

    2.2 GHz

    Support 64 bit

    Socket

    Socket S1 (s1g3) 638-pin S1

    Series

    AMD Turion II 4x AMD Phenom II

    Bus

    3600 MHz 3600 MHz

    PowerNow

    + n/a

    Level 1 Cache

    The fastest level of cache that works directly with the core. The larger the cache, the better the performance.

    128 Kb 512 Kb

    Level 2 cache

    1 Mb 2 Mb

    Power Demand (TDP)

    The calculated heat output shows the average heat dissipation in load operation,
    the larger the value, the more the requirements for cooling and power consumption increase.

    35W 35W
    Benchmarks

    Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

    1955

    94 (5.1%) better than

    1861

    Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

    3754 6811

    3057 (81.4%) better than

    3DMark06 CPU

    1839 3043

    1204 (65.5%) better than

    Technologies and additional instructions
    RAM parameters

    017

    the legend is back! GECID.com. Page 1

    ::>Processors
    >2020
    > AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE gaming test in 2020: the legend is back in the ranks!

    11-06-2020

    Page 1
    Page 2
    One page

    The first processors of the Phenom II X4 line for Socket AM3 disappointed the public, because they lost in performance to the then fresh flagship for AM2+. A logical question arose: “Why switch to a new platform at all?” AMD was able to give a convincing answer to it only in April 2009, and it sounded — Phenom II X4 955 ! Later, even more productive models of this series and even 6-core ones appeared, but the 955th still remains in the one love category for many!

    It has a number of important advantages: a high nominal frequency for its time, 6 MB L3 cache that really speeds up performance, and an unlocked multiplier for easy overclocking. This made it an excellent competitor for Intel models in terms of price / features.

    Phenom II X4 955 in the latest version of the Black Edition revision C3 for the test, we were given the CompX store, which has a wide selection of new and used components. The CPU is based on a full-fledged 45nm Deneb design and includes 4 cores with a nominal frequency of 3200 MHz. The RAM controller supports DDR2-1066 and DDR3-1333 modules in 2-channel mode. The thermal package is 125 watts.

    The test stand has not changed. It is based on the ASRock Fatal1ty 990FX Killer board with a heatsink in the power circuit, the ability to install two video cards in x16 + x16 mode and M.2 SSD support.

    Two of its four DIMM slots are occupied by the 16GB G.Skill TridentX kit. In nominal terms, it worked at a frequency of 1333 MHz with timings of 9-9-9-24.

    Responsibility for cooling the processor was assigned to a 2-section dropsy Cougar AQUA 240 . It copes with its task perfectly even at a reduced speed of rotation of the turntables. By the way, they are built on a reliable and durable hydrodynamic bearing, and thanks to an improved design, they have good static pressure, which is very important for LSS.

    The operating system, benchmarks, games and all other necessary programs fit on a pair of terabyte SSD PATRIOT P200 .

    The video card should not be the weak link in the processor test, and Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock is not. A bunch of 3072 CUDA cores and 8 GB of GDDR6 memory guarantees excellent performance, and an almost 3-slot cooler will take care of a comfortable temperature regime.

    The Seasonic FOCUS PX-650 Platinum Power Supply is deliberately oversized and designed to be as efficient as possible and fan speed as low as possible due to hybrid operation. In energy-efficient bundles, the turntable can even stop its work and delight you with complete silence.

    Full Tower case RIOTORO CR1288TG pleases with its stylish design and thoughtful interior. For example, 3.5-inch drives can be hidden behind a shroud at the bottom, and 2.5-inch drives can be placed behind a tray so that they do not interfere with air circulation.

    Monitor Philips Brilliance 329P9H helped with displaying the image. And an external system with AVerMedia Live Gamer 4K 9 coped with recording gameplay without loss of performance0945 .

    First of all, traditionally, we compared the performance of the processor at nominal and overclocked. Overclocking can be done in two ways — by raising the multiplier or the frequency of the system bus.

    In the first case, the multiplier was increased to 20. Along the way, we raised the CPU Voltage above 1.46 V and the CPU NB Voltage to 1.35 V for stable system operation. As a result, the frequency of the cores increased to 4 GHz.

    The RAM was overclocked to DDR3-1600 MHz with timings 8-8-8-24 and Command Rate one cycle.

    In this mode, the system passed the AIDA64 stress test without any problems. The maximum temperature reached 51°C. There was no throttling. Tried raising the northbridge multiplier to speed up the L3 cache and HyperTransport bus, but couldn’t stabilize the system in games.

    The second way is overclocking on the system bus. Its frequency was raised to 240 MHz and the processor multiplier was also increased to 17. The CPU Voltage and CPU NB Voltage were left at the same level. The final core frequency was 4080 MHz. The frequencies of the north bridge and the HT bus have risen from 2000 to 2160 MHz along the way.

    The RAM worked in DDR3-1600 MHz mode with the same timings.

    In this mode, the system passed the AIDA64 stress test without throttling and stability problems. The processor temperature did not exceed 51°C.

    Let’s see how both overclocking options affect the performance level. For clarity, we have added the results of the Athlon II X4 605e processor overclocked to almost 3100 MHz from the previous material.

    In AIDA64 the cache memory of the Phenom under test is even nominally faster than that of Athlon. But when working with RAM, everything is not so simple. Overclocking the 955 improves read, write and copy speeds by 5-8%. And only after that he can compete on equal terms with the indicators of the 605th Athlone.

    RAM access delay in AIDA64 decreases by 17% after maximum overclocking.

    But in CineBench R15 is already without surprises: even in nominal value, Phenom is ahead of Athlone by 13-18%. Overclocking improves the results of the test model by a maximum of 22-27%, so that it can compete on equal terms with the Intel Pentium Gold G5400.

    We see a similar situation in CPU-Z : the L3 cache and an additional 100 MHz are converted into a maximum of 4% performance bonus of the nominal Phenom over the overclocked Athlone. Overclocking the 955 improves its performance by 28-31%, but this is not enough to get ahead of the 4-thread APU A10-7850K.

    AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE was left in the gaming benchmarks at nominal and at maximum overclocking. In World of Tanks EnCore RT , overclocking increases the results of the test system by a maximum of 40%, but the statistics of very rare events hardly change.