AMD Company expands the line-up of their processors on K10 micro-architecture. Now besides quad-core Phenom X4 they will also offer triple-core Phenom X3. Let’s see if AMD managed to design a successful solution this time without switching to new production process.
AMD’s situation in the processor market these days can hardly be called enviable. AMD fans pinned a lot of hopes upon new K10 micro-architecture, however in reality it didn’t help the company create worthy rivals to Intel’s solutions, even though this micro-architecture is indeed innovative and efficient. Evident strengths of this micro-architecture, such as native quad-core design and L3 cache shared between all cores, remained in the shade because of technological issues that prevented AMD from getting to produce processors with frequencies beyond 2.5GHz. As a result, quad-ore Phenom X4 processors that are already available today turn out unable to compete not only against new 45nm Penryn CPUs, but also against the old 65nm Intel processors.
Moreover, the performance gap between Phenom X4 and Core 2 Quad is so dramatic that even the possibility of performance parity between the two is pretty vague. It is evident that 65nm production technology currently used by AMD will not allow them to increase significantly the working frequencies of their Phenom processors. As for the transition to a more advanced 45nm production process, it is scheduled to take place in Q4 2008. However, 45nm Deneb processors that should come to replace 65nm Phenom will be able to hit only 3.0-3.2GHz frequencies right from the start. And it seems to be not enough to successfully compete against the top quad-core Intel CPUs, so AMD will have to put up with the fate of an inexpensive processor supplier for another while.
AMD does understand the situation very well and tries to introduce the platform concept that will help promote not just bare CPUs but complete kits including a processor, a mainboard and a graphics card. This approach may allow the GPU to make up for insufficient processor performance, which AMD marketing people are trying to stress. However, these kits may be of interest primarily to OEMs and system integrators rather than end users, who are used to putting their systems together from individual components selected basing on their own specific preferences. That is why it is not surprising that neither AMD Spider platform with discrete ATI Radeon HD graphics, nor Cartwheel with the integrated AMD 780G chipset caused any significant stir among computer enthusiasts.
In this situation AMD has to look for other ways to win consumers’ hearts. Their main strategy in attaining this goal has become aggressive pricing policy. Together with the launch of Phenom X4 9X50 processors using the new core revision free from the “TLB bug”, they also lowered the prices of their quad-core processors proportionally to their performance in reference to that of the competitor solutions. As a result, AMD is currently offering the most affordable quad-core solutions in the market. That will certainly find their way into some users’ systems with strategic positioning like that. The same things are happening to the dual-core Athlon 64 X2 processor family that loses to contemporary Core 2 Duo processors in every test. Therefore, retail prices of Athlon 64 X2 dropped so greatly that now these CPUs are regarded only as budget solutions.
Price drop is a good way to maintain proper sales volumes. However, in this case the forefront of the computer community loses interest to AMD solutions and the company is no longer regarded as a technology leader. So, AMD had to find another unique way of warming the public up to their processors. And today’s announcement of the unique Phenom X3 processor family with triple-core configuration is exactly a measure like that. Of course, one of the reasons for these processors to appear is direct economical benefit for the manufacturer, as they got the opportunity to use up “defective” dies for quad-core Phenom processors by disabling one of the cores. But on the other hand, the launch of Phenom X3 may also be regarded as another attempt to compete with Core 2 Duo that are superior to dual-core Athlon 64 X2 from all standpoints. Triple-core Phenom processors are positioned as intermediate solutions between Athlon 64 X2 and Phenom X4, and their price will make them direct competitors to Intel’s mainstream dual-core processors.
So, in our today’s review we are going to check out the new triple-core AMD solutions from this particular stand point. Contemporary software is more and more dedicated to multi-threaded environments that is why triple-core Phenom processors may turn out quite interesting as an alternative to dual-core Intel CPUs. Luckily, we will not be kept in the dark regarding the practical features and potential of the new Phenom X3 processors. AMD provided us with one of the first retail processors from the new series and today we are proud to offer you the results of our extensive tests.
Simple Arithmetic of a Triple-Core CPU
I believe that the new AMD Phenom X3 triple-core processor family (also known as Toliman) doesn’t need a special introduction, as there is hardly anything new about it, if you look closer. These CPUs are based on the same semiconductor dies that are used in quad-core Phenom X4 processors. AMD simply blocks one of the cores in them thus making use of the “defective” chips that failed to become the base for fully-fledged quad-core processors. The mere idea of disabling part of the semiconductor die to ensure that defective high-end chips can get a second chance is not that new at all. However, until recently, AMD and Intel disabled only part of the L2 cache memory.
Phenom X4 processors differ from Intel’s quad-core ones primarily by the monolithic design, which Intel solutions are made of a pair of dual-core semiconductor dies. Therefore, the chances are quite high that there may be a defect in one of the Phenom X4 cores. And it is certainly more probable than the defect in the higher level L3 cache memory. Here Phenom’s block structure was also to AMD’s advantage. Its cores are combined at the L3 cache level, which allows taking one of the cores out of service without changing anything in the micro-architecture and semiconductor die itself.
If we compare the specifications of Phenom X4 and Phenom X3 side y side we will get even more assured that they are closely related:
|
AMD Phenom X4 |
AMD Phenom X3 |
|
| Codename |
Agena |
Toliman |
| Production process |
65 nm |
65 nm |
| Micro-architecture |
Stars (K10) |
Stars (K10) |
| Cores |
4 |
3 |
| Dies |
1 |
1 |
| Clock frequency |
2.2-2.5 GHz |
2.1-2.4 GHz |
| L1 cache |
4 x 64+64 KB |
3 x 64+64 KB |
| L2 cache |
4 x 512 KB |
3 x 512 KB |
| L3 cache |
2 MB |
2 MB |
| Memory controller |
Dual-channel |
Dual-channel |
| Bus |
3.6/4.0GHz HyperTransport |
3.6GHz HyperTransport |
| Typical heat dissipation |
95/125 W |
95 W |
| Transistors |
450 mln. |
450 mln. |
| Die size |
285 sq.mm |
285 sq.mm |
| Power saving technologies |
C1E, Cool’n’Quiet 2.0 |
C1E, Cool’n’Quiet 2.0 |
| Instruction sets |
???, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4A, x86-64 |
???, 3DNow!, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4A, x86-64 |
As a result, Phenom X3 processors turn out absolutely identical to their quad-core elder brothers except for the number of cores.
Today’s announcement mentions three Phenom X3 models with 2.1GHz, 2.3GHz and 2.4GHz frequencies. All these three processors are based on the new B3 stepping free from the notorious “TLB bug”. You should remember however that AMD also makes Phenom X3 processor models based on the old B2 stepping, however, they are not supplied to the retail market.
To avoid confusion in the significantly expanded line-up of Phenom processors based on new K10 micro-architecture, we decided to put together a table listing all the key features of the existing solutions:
We highlighted three new triple-core processors that will be the first Phenom X3 to become available in retail.
Note that all new Phenom X3 features 95W TDP, which indicates that they should work with a broad variety of Socket AM2/Socket AM2+ mainboards, including those from the value segment. In fact, all you need to ensure that new triple-core processors will be compatible with your mainboard is to reflash the BIOS.
The compatibility of the new Phenom X3 processors with available software seems a little bit more complicated. Since it is the first CPU with three cores, it may face some problems with applications being unable to detect and use odd number of cores correctly. However, these individual problems will hardly become very widely spread. During our test session, for example, we haven’t had any issues, except the old versions of the SiSoft Sandra diagnostic utility that didn’t work.
Nevertheless, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Microsoft has released an update a few days ago for 32-bit Windows server 2008 and Windows Vista operating systems intended to solve problems caused by incorrect detection of the number of available cores. You can get the corresponding info regarding this update from Microsoft official web-site. This update eliminates potential problems with incorrect detection of the number of cores in triple-core CPUs, but it is not mandatory. Even without it our Windows Vista Ultimate testbed could see all three cores just fine.
Keeping in mind that Phenom X3 is actually not that much different from Phenom X4, the most interesting thing about it is the price. After a lot of hesitation, AMD decided to set the following official prices:
- AMD Phenom X3 8750 (2.4GHz) – $195;
- AMD Phenom X3 8650 (2.3GHz) – $165;
- AMD Phenom X3 8450 (2.1GHz) – $145.
So, triple-core Phenom X3 family is positioned as something in-between quad-core Phenom X4 and dual-core Athlon 64 X2. As a result, the new processors fit logically into AMD’s product map and become competitors to Wolfdale family of dual-core Intel Core 2 Duo processors, which prices were reduced this past Monday.
But will three cores of the new Phenom X3 be able to compete successfully against two Wolfdale cores? Our test session will try to answer this question. But before we move on to the results, let’s take a closer look at the triple-core processor sample we got into our lab this time.
Closer Look at Phenom X3 8750
Triple-core Phenom X3 8750 looks exactly like its quad-core counterparts. Only the marking gives it away: HD8750WCJ3BGH.
While the first number “9” in the model name indicates Phenom X4, AMD selected indexes starting with “8” for its triple-core processors. “50” in the end of the marking stands for the absence of the TLB bug, just like in Phenom X4, i.e. it means that the CPU belongs to B3 stepping. The second digit depends on the frequency, and the principle here is the same for triple- and quad-core processors. In other words, Phenom X3 8750 you see on the photo above should work at 2.4GHz. It is the top model in the line-up today.
The CPU features three L2 caches (one per each core), each 512KB big and a shared 2MB L3 cache. The built in North Bridge works at 1.8GHz frequency and supports dual-channel DDR2 SDRAM that can work in Ganged or Unganged mode. So, the CPU uses 1800MHz HyperTransport 3.0 bus, however, nevertheless, it is compatible not only with Socket AM2+ but also with older Socket AM2 mainboards.
Nominal Vcore for Phenom X3 is set in the interval from 1.05V to 1.25V. Just like their elder brothers, these new processors support Cool’n’Quiet 2.0 power-saving technology, which, however, is only available on Socket AM2+ mainboards.
Testbed and Methods
As we have already said, Phenom X3 processor family falls “in-between” Phenom X4 and Athlon 64 X2. Therefore, besides the entire Phenom X3 line-up, we have also tested the top dual-core AMD processor and the youngest Phenom X4 model.
On the competitor’s side, we will have dual-core processor from the same price range. After the recent price reduction these are three youngest models from the Wolfdale Core 2 Duo family including the new Core 2 Duo E7200 CPU. However, since there still are some availability issues with 45nm CPUs, we have also included older 65nm representatives of the Core 2 Duo family.
The testbed configuration is given below:
AMD platform:
- CPUs:
- AMD Phenom X4 9550 (Socket AM2+, 2.2GHz, 4 x 512KB L2, 2MB L3, Agena);
- AMD Phenom X3 8750 (Socket AM2+, 2.4GHz, 3 x 512KB L2, 2MB L3, Toliman);
- AMD Phenom X3 8650 (Socket AM2+, 2.3GHz, 3 x 512KB L2, 2MB L3, Toliman);
- AMD Phenom X3 8450 (Socket AM2+, 2.1GHz, 3 x 512KB L2, 2MB L3, Toliman);
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (Socket AM2, 3.2GHz, 2 x 1MB L2, Windsor).
- Mainboard: ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe (Socket AM2+, AMD 790FX).
- Memory: 2GB DDR2-1066 with 5-5-5-15-2T timings (Corsair Dominator TWIN2X2048-10000C5DF).
- Graphics card: OCZ GeForce 8800GTX (PCI-E x16).
- HDD: Western Digital WD1500AHFD (SATA150).
- OS: Microsoft Windows Vista x86.
Intel Platform:
- CPUs:
- Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 (LGA775, 3.0GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 6MB L2, Wolfdale);
- Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 (LGA775, 2.66GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 6MB L2, Wolfdale);
- Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 (LGA775, 2.53GHz, 1067MHz FSB, 3MB L2, Wolfdale);
- Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 (LGA775, 2.66GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 4MB L2, Conroe);
- Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 (LGA775, 2.33GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 4MB L2, Conroe).
- Mainboard: ASUS P5K3 (LGA775, Intel P35, DDR3 SDRAM).
- Memory: 2GB DDR3-1333 SDRAM with 6-6-6-18 timings (Cell Shock DDR3-1800).
- Graphics card: OCZ GeForce 8800GTX (PCI-E x16).
- HDD: Western Digital WD1500AHFD (SATA150).
- OS: Microsoft Windows Vista x86.
Performance
General Performance
SYSmark 2007, which we consider the benchmark showing integral processor performance, reveals pretty interesting results. As we have expected, Phenom X3 turns out generally slower than the youngest quad-core AMD processor. However at the same time their performance is not any higher than that of Athlon 64 X2 6400+ that runs almost as fast as Phenom X4 9550. So, it turns out that if we base our conclusions only on the data from the diagrams above, we will see that there is barely any market niche for the new Phenom X3. And these processors may be interesting only in very few applications that can load fully all three cores.
In this respect, it is not at all surprising, that Phenom X3 loses to Core 2 Duo processors even to the cheapest E7200 and E6550 models. So it turns out that in a wide range of tasks, during regular, not any specific type of work, even three cores with K10 micro-architecture cannot compete successfully against two cores with Core micro-architecture. And the main problem with Phenom processors is, probably, their low clock frequencies.
However, let’s not draw any hasty conclusions and see how the new Phenom X3 perform in different types of applications.
3D Games
Before we move on to the gaming performance graphs we would like to remind you that to test processor performance in games we use low resolution of 1024×768. this low resolution allows us to focus on the “gaming” CPU performance and eliminate the GPU influence on the results, as the performance of this particular component is the primary determinative in real games.
The performance of Phenom X3 may differ in different games, but nevertheless, we can single out two types of behavior this processor demonstrates in gaming applications. In games, which performance is not very scalable when we have more than two processor cores (in other words, those that do not fully support quad-core processors), Phenom X3 demonstrates poor results. New triple-core processors lose to Athlon 64 X2 6400+, not to mention Intel processors in Quake 4, Half Life 2 Episode Two, and, strangely enough, Crysis.
However, there is also another group of games including Unreal Tournament 3, World in Conflict and Lost Planet: Extreme Condition. Performance in these games depends a lot on the number of available computational cores that is why the new Phenom X3 processors do not look that bad here. At least they do not yield to the top Athlon 64 X2 and sometimes are even capable of racing against Core 2 Duo CPUs not only from the previous generation, but also the new Core 2 Duo E7200.
Media Content Encoding
The situation with media content encoding is determined by the codecs optimization for multi-core architectures. Apple iTunes that is well optimized only for dual-core processors works much faster in Athlon 64 X2 and Core 2 Duo based systems. With DivX codec featuring average optimization for multi-threaded environments, Phenom X3 processors fall just a tiny bit behind dual-core Athlon 64 X2 6400+ with 1.5 times higher clock frequency. However, they are still too far behind the dual-core Intel processors. However, the popular x264 H.264/MPEG-4 video codec that loads the CPUs with multiple cores very nicely, allows to fully reveal the Phenom X3 potential. During our performance tests with this codec, triple-core newcomers not only outperformed Athlon 64 X2, but also caught up with the youngest Wolfdale processors.
Final Rendering
Final rendering is an excellent example of tasks with well paralleled load. Therefore it is not at all surprising that Phenom X3 processor family perform exactly the way AMD wanted them to. The performance of the new triple-core processors fits precisely between the youngest Phenom X4 and the top Athlon 64 X2. Moreover, triple-core Phenom X3 compete quite successfully against dual-core Core 2 Duo including their 45nm models. It is a pity though that this is more likely to be an exception rather than a rule.
Other Applications
Dual-core processors cope better with Adobe Photoshop than Phenom X3. Although there are a lot of filters in this application that can split the workload into parallel streams, the results indicate that triple-core AMD processors lack frequency.
Rendering in Adobe Premiere is similar to 3D rendering. Phenom X3 perform pretty well here.
WinRAR archiving also works faster on Phenom X3 than on the top Athlon 64 X2. However Wolfdale processors from the Core 2 Duo E8000 series with larger L2 cache show much higher results.
The popular computer algebra suite proves more efficient on dual-core processors with Core micro-architecture, although it makes good use of multi-core structures. You can see it clearly from the advantage triple-core AMD processors have over dual-core Athlon 64 X2 6400+.
The results obtained in a popular chess application are another consolation for AMD fans. Yes, there are applications where Phenom X3 processors can work as fast as the youngest Core 2 Duo, and you can certainly find enough of them if you wish.
Overclocking
Although triple-core Phenom X3 processors are based on the same B3 stepping as the quad-core AMD CPUs, we should pay special attention to their overclocking potential. As there are fewer cores working simultaneously, the heat dissipation should also go down and theoretically it should allow achieving better overclocking results.
I would like to point out that Phenom X3 8750 processor we had at our disposal, just like other CPUs from the same family, features a locked clock frequency multiplier. That is why they should be overclocked by raising the clock generator frequency. This is not as easy to accomplish as we wish. The thing is that as we have already mentioned in our special article, this frequency is tied up not only to the resulting CPU frequency, but also to the frequency of the built-in North Bridge, memory and HyperTransport 3.0 bus. That is why when you increase the clock generator frequency, you should remember to reduce the corresponding coefficients and dividers forming the North Bridge, HyperTransport and DDR2 SDRAM frequencies.
For example, by raising the processor Vcore to 1.45V we could increase the clock generator frequency to 260MHz from the default 200MHz without losing stability. However, the North Bridge and HyperTrasnport frequency multipliers has to be set at 7x instead of the nominal 9x, thus keeping the corresponding frequencies close to their nominal values.
In this case Phenom X3 8750 processors overclocked to 3.1GHz frequency and remained absolutely stable. We tested stability with a one-hour run of Prime95 25.5 utility. To dissipate the heat from the overclocked processor we used Scythe Mugen (Infinity) air cooler.
I would like to say that 3.1GHz frequency is the best result for a K10 based processor that we managed to obtain in our lab so far. Therefore, we can hope that Phenom X3 processors are more overclocking-friendly than their quad-core fellows. However, we will be able to draw final conclusions only once we collect more data from the tests of more than one processor sample.
Power Consumption
To get a complete picture we also measured the power consumption of our test platforms (without monitor) built around the participating processors working at their nominal speeds. The systems were configured exactly the same way as during performance tests. Enhanced Intel SpeedStep and Cool’n’Quiet 2.0 power-saving technologies were activated. Processors were loaded using Prime95 25.5 utility.
As we have expected, triple-core processors turned out more economical than their quad-core counterparts thanks to fewer cores. Besides, they boast lower power consumption than dual-core Athlon 64 X2 thanks to not very high clock speeds. However, from the economical standpoint new Phenom X3 family still fails to compete with Intel processors.
Conclusion
AMD Phenom X3 is definitely a very interesting processor. At least since it is the industry’s first CPU with triple-core sign and monolithic organization. And although it is our first experience with a non-standard processor like that, it didn’t cause any issues when working in a convention hardware and software environment. This CPU is fully compatible with the existing infrastructure, which indicates that AMD chose the right strategy in putting the defective quad-core Phenom X4 to good use.
As for the consumer qualities and marketing future of the new processor, the things are not as clear here. All major problems typical of processors on K10 micro-architecture found their way into triple-core solutions, too. That is why Phenom X3 processors, just like Phenom X4 lack clock speed so badly. However, they are still in a little better situation than quad-core processors, because AMD positions them as competitors to Intel’s dual-core Core 2 Duo.
However, Core 2 Duo and Phenom X3 do not always show us an interesting race. We only see it in applications where performance scales well for more than two cores. Unfortunately, there are very few applications like that, so in most cases Phenom X3 loses to Intel processors from the same price range. Still, these applications do exist and include final rendering tasks, some video processing and encoding tasks, and a few others.
So, we have to state that another AMD initiative has not too many chances to succeed. Phenom X3 may become a great niche product, however, they will hardly get very popular. Youngest Intel processors from Wolfdale family priced at the same level offer higher average performance, lower heat dissipation and power consumption and much better overclocking potential. AMD, however, will hardly dare drop the Phenom X3 prices much lower, because they use a monolithic quad-core die, which is pretty expensive to make. To be fair, I would like to add that if AMD decided to lower the prices even more, Phenom X3 may become a worthy alternative to Core 2 Duo E4000 and Pentium Dual Core.
In conclusion I would like to say that Phenom X3 can not always be recommended as a suitable upgrade for the Socket AM2 systems. The thing is that top dual-core Athlon 64 X2 processors can often offer better performance, although with higher heat dissipation.
So, Phenom X3 will hardly become a bestseller. It will most likely find its users, but there are still too many reservations to be made with not too many significant advantages.
0 Responses to “AMD Phenom X3 8750 Review”