Even as Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) finally starts to look competitive
with its low-end
Fusion CPU+GPU systems-on-chips (SOCs), it still has no real answer in the
high performance end.
This week it released what will likely be the
final member of the Phenom
II family (45 nm),
the high-end counterpart to AMD's
budget Athlon II line. Both lines will begin
a slow phase-out by June, being replaced with the chips bearing AMD's new
architecture -- Bulldozer (32
The new chip is dubbed the AMD Phenom II X4-980 Black Edition.
The final Phenom II has
what it takes to be a decent performer -- if it were launched, say, two or
three years ago.
Its four cores are clocked at 3.7 GHz, though
the memory controller, HyperTransport controller, and L3 cache run at just
2 GHz, without any type of special overclocking. The chip fits neatly
into AM3 socket boards and will be compatible with future AM3+ boards.
Performance-wise, the chip gets beat in numeric
benchmarks (e.g. SiSoft Sandra 2011b) by its more expensive AMD hexacore
brethren, the X6-1090T and X6-1100T.
It also gets blown away by Intel Corp.'s (INTC) lowest end Nehalem (45
nm) i7 processor, the Core i7-860. Let that sink in for a minute -- Intel's
slowest quad-core i7 processor, released in September 2009, can still beat
AMD's fastest quad-core processor, released in May 2011.
(To be fair, the i7-860 debuted at a higher price
of $279, though its price later dropped substantially to near the X4-980's mark
as Intel cleared inventory to prepare for Sandy
PC Perspective measured the
X4-980 as being about 25 frames-per-second slower than the i7-860 in Far
Cry 2 at high-resolution settings and 10 fps slower at
Looking at its closest modern Intel competitor, the
i5-2400 (more on that later), the X4-980 is yet again left badly beaten, both
in synthetic benchmarks and in games. The i5-2400 (3.1 GHz standard, 3.7
GHz "Turbo Mode") -- a Sandy
Bridge (32 nm) chip -- is anywhere from 15-20 fps ahead in
numerous game titles, according
to benchmarks by AnandTech.
But the bad news for the new processor
performance-wise doesn't end there. Under load it is estimated to consume
around 164.6 watts, near 50 watts more than slim 115.2 watts the i5-2400 draws.
Its one saving grace performance-wise is that it
proves a decent chip to overclock, being capable of being bumped to 4.3 GHz,
without water-cooling, if you're careful.
Both the i7-860 and the X4-980 have a bit of a
common problem -- they're overqualified for most consumer workloads -- even
casual gaming. So while the Intel chip spanks the AMD chip in
performance, the real question for most of its target audience boils down to
The chip is expected to debut somewhere around
$195 USD. That price makes the situation a bit complicated, as AMD's own
X6-1090T is only $5 more, at $200 USD and beats it in multi-thread optimized
workloads (though in many casual games the X4-980) will come out ahead.
As the old core models aren't currently widely
available, having been phased out by Sandy Bridge, its clearest competition in the
Intel department is the quad-core i5-2400, which retails for $190 USD.
So to summarize, Intel's main competitor, the
i5-2400 not only badly burns the newest member of the Phenom
II in performance and power consumption, it also leaves $5 USD more in
Of course, if you already have an AM3 board and
aren't willing to upgrade, the price situation may shift in the new chip's
favor -- though you still have to factor in the much slower performance. Anand Lal Shimpi sums it up nicely, writing:
There's not a whole lot to say here about the Phenom II X4 980.
AMD originally introduced the Phenom II architecture over two years ago to
compete with Intel's Core 2 lineup. Intel has since been through one major
microarchitecture revision (Sandy Bridge) and Phenom II is beginning to show
its age. AMD is most competitive at the edges of its lineup. The Phenom II X6
offers a ton of cores at a budget if you have a workload that can use them, and
the Athlon II at the low end is still quite desirable. Unless you're an existing Socket-AM3 motherboard owner a high end Phenom
II X4 just isn't attractive.
The Tech Report was even more blunt, with Scott Wasson writing:
which leaves us wondering what, exactly, is the point of this little product
refresh. Yes, AMD's top quad-core product is a tiny little bit improved over
the prior model, but even in the small picture, nothing much has changed at
AMD will hope to wash that bad taste out of
consumers mouths with a final release of Athlon
II chip(s) at the low end soon, which (hopefully) will be more competitively
priced. And for those who hope the best for AMD -- or at least hope for a
competitive CPU market -- you can always look forward hopefully to the release
of Bulldozer later this year, which could offer
a legitimate competitor to Sandy Bridge at the high end, if AMD can
quote: The final Phenom II has what it takes to be a decent performer -- if it were launched, say, two or three years ago.
quote: PC gaming is a small niche of customers and GPU is only important for them and no one else.
quote: The same casual user might be compiling code, simulating electrical circuits, working on Excel spreadsheets, while running a VM, which can all tax the CPU heavily.
quote: It's like P4 vs Athlon XP. In reverse.
quote: Actually Athlon XP was not significantly faster.
quote: AMD has competed on price quite successfully during the times when Intel had technically better products. They're in no trouble.
quote: Ah, poor Cyrix, I knew you well...
quote: The Stars architecture isn't a replica of that ill fated mistake in my opinion, not with the great pricing anyway.
quote: I don't see how you can call K10 a failure. Yes, the original Phenom had the TLB bug, but to say it was bested by the Duos is a bit unfair. For a start, it was lower clocked, and being triple and quad core, it was meant for multitasking workloads.
quote: It also gets blown away by Intel's lowest end Nehalem... release September 2009
quote: I might be wrong, but I thought the first Nahelems were out in '08.
quote: It also gets blown away by Intel Corp.'s (INTC) lowest end Nehalem (45 nm) processor, the Core i7-860. Let that sink in for a minute -- Intel's slowest quad-core i7 processor, released in September 2009, can still beat AMD's fastest quad-core processor, released in May 2011.
quote: being capable of being bumped to 4.3 GHz, without water-cooling, if you're careful.
quote: Under load it is estimated to consume around 164.6 watts, near 50 watts more than slim 115.2 watts the i5-2400 draws.