Phenom fx vs phenom: AMD FX-8350 vs AMD Phenom II X4 965: What is the difference?

Welcome to our freeware PC speed test tool. UserBenchmark will test your PC and compare the results to other users with the same components. You can quickly size up your PC, identify hardware problems and explore the best upgrades.

UserBenchmark of the month

Gaming

Desktop

ProGaming

CPUGPUSSDHDDRAMUSB

How it works

• — Download and run UserBenchmark.
• — CPU tests include: integer, floating and string.
• — GPU tests include: six 3D game simulations.
• — Drive tests include: read, write, sustained write and mixed IO.
• — RAM tests include: single/multi core bandwidth and latency.
• — SkillBench (space shooter) tests user input accuracy.
• — Reports are generated and presented on userbenchmark.com.
• — Identify the strongest components in your PC.
• — See speed test results from other users.
• — Compare your components to the current market leaders.
• — Explore your best upgrade options with a virtual PC build.
• — Compare your in-game FPS to other users with your hardware.

 Frequently Asked Questions

 Best User Rated

•   

  Intel Core i5-13600K

•   

  Intel Core i5-12600K

•   

  Intel Core i5-12400F

•   

  Intel Core i7-12700K

•   

  Intel Core i5-12400

•   

  Intel Core i9-13900K

•   

  AMD Ryzen 5 5600X

•   

  Intel Core i3-12100F

•   

  AMD Ryzen 5 3600

•   

  Intel Core i7-11700K

•   

  Intel Core i7-13700K

•   

  Intel Core i3-12100

About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube
Feedback

AMD Phenom II and FX processors for the AM3+ platform

Methodology for testing
computer systems of the 2016 model

Closing the circle of «historical testing», today we will deal with a platform that formally remains alive and well, although ideologically even older earlier reviewed by AMD FM1 and Intel LGA1156. How does she do it? We have already dealt with this issue: Socket AM3 + 2011 is practically no different from the “just” AM3 2009, which was obtained by switching from DDR2 to DDR3 from AM2 / AM2 + from 2006, and these, in turn, are practically nothing more than Socket 939 summer 2004, but with DDR2, not «plain» DDR. However, it would be more correct to speak even about 2003, when Socket 940 appeared: Socket 939 is its simplification, without support for multiprocessor configurations. During this time, not only memory standards, of course, but also some other interfaces have changed, but conceptually, in the form of AM3 +, we have a classic platform of the zero years — three-chip and a relatively low degree of integration. It is also worth noting that the latest microarchitectural updates of processors produced for it date back to the end of 2012, i.e. from this point of view, even the latest modification of AM3 + is already history (to the same extent as LGA1155, for example). However, within other platforms, AMD ships no more than two-module processors (supporting, respectively, only four computing threads) with a significant bias towards integrated graphics, so that the most productive AMD processors are still AM3 + devices. They have not been updated for a long time, but their final obsolescence is planned only for the second half of this year — in connection with the transition to a single (finally!) socket AM4, for which both high-performance processors without integrated graphics and relatively low-end ones with such will be produced. It is easy to see that this is not yet an analogue of LGA1155 and subsequent Intel platforms — rather, a repetition of LGA1156, since when choosing a fast processor «to load» you will have to use a discrete video card. But it’s still much better than what happened to the company’s range of the last five years, when the various FMx and the same long-outdated AM3+ were simply incompatible with each other.

How did the company manage to keep the AM3+ afloat without upgrading the processors? Yes, very simply: due to the price. We had to forget about competition for lovers of high performance anyway, but for about the same money a buyer can buy either an eight-core FX-8350/8370 or a four-core Core i5-6400. Yes, of course, the comparison of prices in this case is not entirely correct, since it does not take into account other features of the platforms and, first of all, the ability to save on a video card in the case of an Intel platform. However, if you still need to purchase a video accelerator (for example, when you are interested in games — we have and continue to adhere to the opinion that a full-fledged gaming computer without a discrete video card is still impossible), this problem disappears. And at first glance, it doesn’t matter that the same FX-8350 appeared back in 2012: advertising in its case generally talks about eight cores (forgetting to clarify that these are somewhat different cores than in other processor architectures, even by AMD itself), that . e. gives the impression of a processor that costs piecesbucks . This is the right approach, the wrong one, but it works. And how — it is useful to check. In the end, as mentioned above, this year we will finally be able to get acquainted with new AMD processors — so in any case they will have to be compared with the old ones. So today we will create an «information reserve» on old and even very old processors, since such an opportunity presented itself.

Test stand configuration

900. 1866

There will be two main characters. The FX-8370 processor is relatively new — it appeared at the end of 2014, but differs from the FX-8350 (the firstborn of the Vishera family) only in the turbo mode clock speed. Note that formally the top representatives of the family are the FX-9370 and FX-9590, but the latter exist only formally: a TDP of 220 W not only scares many people off by itself, it also leads to compatibility problems with many motherboards, and also a thoughtful approach to the choice of cooling system. Well, if all this doesn’t scare you, then you shouldn’t forget that any processors of the FX family have fully unlocked multipliers, allowing for arbitrarily fine tuning, including frequency. This, by the way, is another reason that the platform still has a certain popularity among those users who do not care about the result — the main thing is the process itself. Which in this case is also facilitated by a huge crystal of a processor manufactured according to the 32 nm process technology — it is very easy to provide such a heat sink (sometimes disadvantages can become advantages). Moreover, equipping «box» processors with updated coolers allows you to count on good results even in such a variant, which may also turn out to be cheaper than the «traditional» approach with an OEM processor and some kind of «supercooler». In general, for the limited in means enthusiast platform is interesting, despite its archaism.

But since the testing of this platform is still a digression into history, we decided to test an even older processor belonging to the Phenom II X6 family using a new method (including the study of power consumption issues). Before the release of the first FX in 2011, it was the top product in the company’s range. Moreover, this is forever the best solution for old motherboards with «regular» AM3 and even AM2+. Moreover, as our tests showed, the use of DDR3 is not so necessary for processors of the Phenom II family, so we won’t be surprised if such systems continue to be used somewhere (after all, Pentium D owners regularly run through the Conference — until now :)). The top-end 1100T would be best for us, but there wasn’t one, and the existing 1075T, alas, is not a Black Edition, so it doesn’t turn into an older model in the correct way. However, even with the possibility of overclocking by a multiplier, it is still unknown how correct it is from the point of view of measuring power consumption, and the line itself is so old (2010!) . Therefore, there will be a second one — since it exists.

4 8 4/8 cache L1, I/D, KB 192/64 128/128 128/128 128/128 L2 cache, KB KB, KB 2×2048 4×256 4×256 4×256 L3 Cache, MiB —

8 8 RAM 2 × DDR3-2133 2 × DDR3-1600 /
2 × DDR4-2133 2 × DDR3-1333 2 × DDR3-1600 TDP . 900 65 900 77 graphics — HDG 530 — HDG 4000 900.23r 16 Frequency STD/Max, MHz — 350/950 — 650/1150 T-13582517 —

—

With whom shall we compare? It was not for nothing that we mentioned the Core i5-6400 above — the youngest quad-core of the modern Intel line directly competes in price with older AMD models (taking into account, of course, a remark about the video card). According to some readers, last time it was necessary to compare it with solutions for LGA1156, and not having a close price and performance, but still a dual-core Core i3-6320. Therefore, today we will add the best processor for the mentioned platform to the list of test subjects, namely the Core i7-880, since the first FX were created, among other things, to compete with those. Unfortunately, however, they came out later than it was necessary to provide such — already in the days of processors for LGA1155. One of these models (albeit already the third, and not the second generation Core) has been tested by us at the moment — we will add it to the list of test subjects for completeness. And, at the same time, the fastest Athlon X4 for FM2+ is for the masses. Moreover, for fans of AMD products, these are also direct competitors to some extent: the FX-8370 is certainly “cooler”, but it is also more expensive. Yes, and plus an archaic platform. And among the tested ones, we recall, there is Phenom II X6 1075T, so it will be interesting to see how six, but old cores compare with modern, but two modules. It’s clear that four is more interesting, but the transition from Phenom II (not necessarily six-core) will be simple and inexpensive only if you have a board with AM3+. If there is only AM2 +, then change everything anyway. But if, for example, some Athlon II is installed on such a board, the performance of which is already not enough, the question of whether to find Phenom II on the secondary market or change the platform is not at all idle.

In other test conditions, all subjects were running a system with a Radeon R9 380 discrete graphics card and 16 GB of RAM. The type and frequency of the latter were the maximum supported processors — for all, except for the Phenom II X6 1075T, which we tested with DDR3-1600, which does not cause problems (however, it hardly affects performance either).

Test Method

The method is described in detail in a separate article. Here we briefly recall that it is based on the following four pillars:

• 2016 iXBT.com performance measurement methodology based on real world applications
• 2016 iXBT. com gaming performance measurement methodology
• 2016 iXBT.com gaming performance monitoring methodology

And the detailed results of all tests are available in the form of a complete table with the results (in Microsoft Excel 9 format).7-2003). Directly in the articles, we use already processed data. In particular, this applies to application tests, where everything is normalized relative to the reference system (as last year, a laptop based on Core i5-3317U with 4 GB of memory and a 128 GB SSD) and grouped by the areas of application of the computer.

iXBT Application Benchmark 2016

As you can see, if the modular architecture appeared in 2010, its “life” would be significantly simplified: and a couple of modules are no longer inferior to the Core i5 of that time, and four can convincingly surpass even the quad-core Core i7. But, unfortunately (or fortunately), in 2011, when developing processors for the LGA1155, Intel managed to significantly improve all the characteristics of its products, and so dramatically that since then such «feats» have not been observed for five years. As a result, the older FX had to be positioned not in the segment between i5 and i7, but at the level of the former. So their price is quite consistent with the performance, but nothing more. Moreover, it is clearly seen that the company had no other options — the transfer of Phenom to a thinner production process was unlikely to significantly «spur» them: in order to bypass six old cores, two modules are often enough, and not three or four .

Especially when the software is not always able to fully utilize a large number of computation threads, but is demanding on their quality — including support for modern instruction sets and so on. As a result, even the older FX are now lagging behind the younger Core i5, but it could be worse — as Phenom showed us. Actually, as has been said more than once, intensive architecture improvements usually have their effect not at all in the generations of processors in which they are implemented. But the further you go, the more important it is.

But here — nothing matters: there would be one fast stream. In such conditions (which is not a secret), AMD processors have a hard time, but it’s easy to see that they had a chance to be the fastest on the market in 2010.

But in this case, there was no hypothetical one. However, judging by the small difference between FX and Phenom (and not even the older one), it is clear that no one was involved in optimizing such work scenarios at all: anyway, the performance for those times was not bad.

As we have already written more than once, relatively old integer code is the best thing that can be encountered in the life of AMD modular processors. And it is clearly seen that, in general, they were developed for such applications: after all, six-core Phenom II in 2010 could no longer compete with quad-core Core i7 in such tasks, but for quad-module FX it was a feasible task. Unfortunately, at the end of 2011 (when the first processors of this family finally appeared physically) it became much more complicated.

Actually, an aria from the same opera — as we have already noted, data packing is similar to text recognition in terms of the logic of work. And the results too.

The obvious outsider here is the Core i7-880, but simply because LGA1156 only supported SATA300. As we have already noted, in order for the difference to become generally noticeable, you need to use a fast SSD, which was difficult in those years. Now it’s gone, so it’s a little, but it affects. But AMD endowed its chipsets with support for the new interface even then, so in this case there were no rough edges at all.

As we have already mentioned, various SMT technologies are “alien” to the program, but the number of “hardware” cores and their quality are relevant, which, for example, results in the fact that the modern junior Core i5 is faster than the old Core i7. And even not so fundamentally old — not only 880, but also 3770 was left behind. The first one also lagged behind the FX-8370, which is a common thing. And here are six very old architectural cores in Phenom II… They can overtake two modules of modern AMD processors, but with great difficulty — they can’t cope with three.

What do we have in total? The FX-8370 is about one and a half times faster than the Athlon X4 880K — a normal increase due to doubling the cores and adding L3 cache. But, unfortunately, this is already not enough to compete with modern Intel processors, which equal prices do not fully compensate for. If only because the buyer of the Core i5-6400 can do without a discrete graphics card, but the one who chooses FX cannot. But if he still plans to buy it, it turns out something close to parity — until now. True, prices are not its cause, but rather a consequence — it is not for nothing that they have been declining all the years.

Why the situation turned out to be exactly like this — in principle, one can also guess from the results. We don’t know exactly what years the main part of the development of the modular architecture fell on, but we can assume that it was earlier than 2011 — after all, it was then (and after several delays) that the first processors for AM3 + already began to be sold. Had this happened a year earlier, when quad-core processors like the Core i7-870/880 cost around $3-500, the effect would have been noticeable — comparable to the release of the first Athlons. At the same time, two-module processors (including models with an integrated GPU) would be suitable for replacing a quad-core Phenom or Core 2 Quad, while three-module processors would look fine against the background of Phenom II X6 (or instead of them) and Core i5. But in the end, the processors had to compete not with models for LGA1366 or LGA1156, but with the new (at that time) LGA1155, which is still not bad even against the background of newer Intel platforms. Which, however, have become even better, and the old FX have been living on the market without major changes since 2012. Which has to be compensated for by prices that were at first between the Core i5 and i7, then at the level of the older i5, then the middle ones, and now the younger ones. Since the consumer characteristics of processors approximately correspond to such prices. Only here Core i5 are very cheap processors for production, and FX are expensive. So it’s time to break this vicious circle — the further, the more difficult it is. Let’s hope everything works out this year.

Energy consumption and energy efficiency

However, as far as energy consumption is concerned, even in those years it was not all smooth sailing, and from the point of view of modernity, 200 W is very frightening. It is clear that this includes what “passed” through the board to power the video card — but it is the same for everyone. But the “gluttony” of the three-chip platform is its pure feature and “hello from the 2000s”: modern ones are much more economical. However, if you pay attention to the actual needs of the processor, then it also reached 140 W, i.e. for AMD, exceeding the TDP level is just a common thing (although some people still try to scold Intel for this in the old fashioned way). But the Phenom II X6 looks better at first glance. But do not forget that this is not the oldest model of the line, firstly, and that power consumption makes sense only in conjunction with performance, secondly.

And from this point of view, the modular architecture was a clear step forward. We also note that FX behave better than Athlon, if only because the shared L3 cache (which is not available in processors for FM2/FM2+) has a positive effect on performance, but is not too gluttonous. The truth takes up a lot of space, which is why its implementation in processors with integrated GPUs turned out to be impossible. But in general, it becomes clear why the company did not make the FX shrink for the 28 nm process technology: in the APU it allowed to increase the graphics power, but the processor cores would not give anything or almost nothing. And the wake-up call sounded the alarm five years ago: Intel managed to achieve the performance level of 45-nanometer processors, but at the cost of excessive power consumption (who said «NetBurst»?) . And then the situation only worsened.

iXBT Game Benchmark 2016

Can these processors work well in a gaming computer? Generally speaking, yes — after all, the main load falls on the video card. But how many possibilities of the latter will be «disappeared» because of the processor? This question is especially not idle, by the way, for users of motherboards with AM2+ or «regular» AM3, where Phenom II X4/X6 is the best available without changing the platform, and the once popular Athlon II with t. modern times, they don’t “pull” anything at all.

A case where «single-threaded performance» is critical, which puts all AMD processors in an uncomfortable position. The performance of even the (already) inexpensive R9 380 is held back by all the test subjects. But you can play with comfort on all the same.

And here everyone copes close to the maximum possible. And by the way, pay attention — the old Phenom II is noticeably better than the new Athlon.

It’s worse here, but, again, Phenom II is no worse than any Core 2 Quad or Core i5/i7. And FX are already able to «wrestle» with newer i5 / i7.

But in the newer game of the series, Phenom II keeps on equal (already equal) only with Athlon. Which, however, is quite enough for practical use — but it could be better. At least at the level of FX, which in FHD already allows the selected video card to «give it its all» to the fullest.

And here everyone is about the same — there are differences only in the reduced resolution mode. And, funny, they are more in favor of AM3 + than vice versa.

When everything is determined by the video card, processors from five or six years ago are also good. The most powerful of them, of course. But they cost a little later began to be very cheap.

FX is behaving well, Phenom II’s time has expired, alas. On the other hand, if such a processor already exists, then it is not at all necessary to change it in a gaming computer — there will be no noticeable effect. It’s better to put a more powerful video card.

Here Thief clearly «votes» for powerful platforms — and considers only the modern range of Intel as such. From one side. On the other hand, it cannot be said that something does not work at all. There are about 40 frames — if you want to save on changing platforms, this can be considered sufficient.

Three practically «purely video card» games — with corresponding «purely concrete» results.

Here in this pair there is already a dependence of the frame rate on processor performance. But, in fact, so what? The absolute results of all the test subjects are more than sufficient for a comfortable game. So, in the end, we come to the conclusion that for an inexpensive gaming computer, “the old oak tree will still make some noise.” Naturally, if it is already there (or can be purchased very cheaply). And, of course, given the fact that even for budget modern video cards, such a processor can be a «limiting factor.» Not in the sense that it will not be possible to play, but in the fact that the performance, nevertheless, will be lower than potentially possible. But even this will not always happen.

Total

In principle, we did not get anything unusual in the end — the platform is formally “live” and up-to-date, but in fact it has not been updated for a long time.