AMD's Winter Update: Athlon II X3 455, Phenom II X2 565 and Phenom II X6 1100T
by Anand Lal Shimpi on December 7, 2010 12:01 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- AMD
- Phenom II X6
- Athlon II
- Phenom II
AMD is usually pretty aggressive with turning process tweaks and yield improvements into new products. Just two months ago AMD gave us the Athlon II X3 450 and the Phenom II X2 565, today we're getting speed bumps of both of those parts. The Athlon II X3 455 runs at 3.3GHz, up from 3.2GHz and costs the same $87. You get an additional 100MHz for free. The chip hasn't changed otherwise. You get a quad-core die with one core disabled, no L3 cache and a 512KB L2 per core.
At $87 this part competes head to head with Intel's Pentium G6950. The Athlon II X3 450 mopped the floor with the G6950 in our last review, and the speed bumped 455 will be no different in this review. If you CPU budget is right around the $80 - $90 mark, AMD has you covered.
The Phenom II X2 565 is an unlocked Black Edition part, also identical to its predecessors. Here you have a quad-core die with two cores disabled, a 512KB L2 per core and a shared 6MB L3. The 565 runs at 3.4GHz, up from 3.3GHz, but the clock increase comes with a $10 price increase.
The 565 goes up against Intel's Core i3 540 and 550 processors. The comparison here is less clear cut. In the case of the Athlon II X3, you get more cores for the same money which really helps AMD out. The 565 by default doesn't give you any more cores, all you get is a higher clock speed and a larger L3 cache. But you lose out on IPC, threaded performance and power consumption. While AMD easily wins between $80 - $90, around $110 - $120 the choice moves back towards Intel. There is just one more thing however.
Both the Athlon II X3 and Phenom II X2 are made from harvested die. As we've seen in the past, these harvested die aren't always bad. In the case of the Phenom II X2 we've seen a number of CPUs with disabled cores that could just as easily be re-enabled. Armed with ASUS' M4A89GTD Pro/USB 3 890GX motherboard I tried to see if I could enable any of the disabled cores on the two samples AMD sent me.
In the case of the Athlon II X3, enabling the fourth core wasn't a problem. ASUS' Core Unlocker enabled it and the system was just as stable as before, now with four fully functional cores. I could even overclock the four cores just as far as I could overclock the chip with only three cores enabled.
I managed to get three working cores on the Phenom II X2, however I couldn't boot into Windows 7 with the fourth core enabled.
A Phenom II X2 565: Overclocked and with one additional core unlocked
In the case of the $87 Athlon II X3 turning into an $87 Athlon II X4, you can't get better than that. Your mileage will most definitely vary. I've had Phenom II X2s that would work as quad core parts, triple core parts and refuse to work at all above two cores. The same goes for the Athlon II line. You can't count on core unlocking working, but if it does, it's great additional value.
The Phenom II X6 1100T
The six-core Phenom II X6 gets a speed bump as well. The 1100T increases default clock speeds from 3.2GHz to 3.3GHz, and increases Turbo Core frequency from 3.6GHz to 3.7GHz. Turbo Core is only supported on Thuban based processors (currently only Phenom II X6s) and increases operating frequency if half or fewer cores are actively in use.
The bigger news here is the 1100T reflects AMD's new Phenom II X6 pricing:
Processor | Clock Speed | L2 Cache | L3 Cache | TDP | Price |
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T BE | 3.3GHz | 3MB | 6MB | 125W | $265 |
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T BE | 3.2GHz | 3MB | 6MB | 125W | $235 |
AMD Phenom II X6 1075T | 3.0GHz | 3MB | 6MB | 125W | $199 |
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T | 2.8GHz | 3MB | 6MB | 125W | $195 |
AMD Phenom II X4 970 BE | 3.5GHz | 2MB | 6MB | 125W | $185 |
AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE | 3.4GHz | 2MB | 6MB | 125W | $165 |
AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE | 3.2GHz | 2MB | 6MB | 125W | $145 |
AMD Phenom II X2 565 BE | 3.4GHz | 1MB | 6MB | 80W | $115 |
AMD Phenom II X2 560 BE | 3.3GHz | 1MB | 6MB | 80W | $105 |
AMD Phenom II X2 555 BE | 3.2GHz | 1MB | 6MB | 80W | $93 |
AMD Athlon II X4 645 | 3.1GHz | 2MB | 0MB | 95W | $122 |
AMD Athlon II X4 640 | 3.0GHz | 2MB | 0MB | 95W | $100 |
AMD Athlon II X3 455 | 3.3GHz | 1.5MB | 0MB | 95W | $87 |
AMD Athlon II X3 450 | 3.2GHz | 1.5MB | 0MB | 95W | $87 |
AMD Athlon II X3 445 | 3.1GHz | 1.5MB | 0MB | 95W | $76 |
AMD Athlon II X2 265 | 3.3GHz | 2MB | 0MB | 65W | $76 |
AMD Athlon II X2 260 | 3.2GHz | 2MB | 0MB | 65W | $69 |
AMD Athlon II X2 255 | 3.1GHz | 2MB | 0MB | 65W | $66 |
At $265 this puts the 1100T between the Core i5 760 and the Core i7 860. While the Core i7 860 still has the edge in some of our tests, the 1100T is within striking distance and cheaper. In heavily threaded apps, the 1100T's six cores really come in handy and give AMD the win. Combine the two and you can get a better value. However Intel still holds the advantage in lightly threaded scenarios thanks to the i5/i7 aggressive turbo modes.
The Test
To keep the review length manageable we're presenting a subset of our results here. For all benchmark results and even more comparisons be sure to use our performance comparison tool: Bench.
We've moved all of our AMD CPU testing to the 890GX platform. While nearly all numbers are comparable you may occasionally see some scaling that doesn't quite add up compared to lower clocked versions of the same chips running on a previous motherboard.
Motherboard: | ASUS P7H57DV- EVO (Intel H57) Intel DP55KG (Intel P55) Intel DX58SO (Intel X58) Intel DX48BT2 (Intel X48) ASUS M4A89GTD Pro/USB3 (AMD 890GX) |
Chipset Drivers: | Intel 9.1.1.1015 (Intel) AMD Catalyst 8.12 |
Hard Disk: | Intel X25-M SSD (80GB) |
Memory: | Corsair DDR3-1333 4 x 1GB (7-7-7-20) Corsair DDR3-1333 2 x 2GB (7-7-7-20) |
Video Card: | eVGA GeForce GTX 280 (Vista 64) ATI Radeon HD 5870 (Windows 7) |
Video Drivers: | ATI Catalyst 9.12 (Windows 7) NVIDIA ForceWare 180.43 (Vista64) NVIDIA ForceWare 178.24 (Vista32) |
Desktop Resolution: | 1920 x 1200 |
OS: | Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit (for SYSMark) Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit Windows 7 x64 |
65 Comments
View All Comments
vol7ron - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
"today we're getting speed bumps"Usually this term is associated with a slow down, not a push forward - you slow down at the speed bump. It's sort of like how you don't associate a stop sign with accelerating as fast as you can, which many do right after.
Other Thoughts: Perhaps you meant speed burst?
fic2 - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
Apparently you don't know that words can have multiple meanings.See #5 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bump
bump (bmp)
v. bumped, bump·ing, bumps
v.tr.
1. To strike or collide with.
2. To cause to knock against an obstacle.
3.
a. To knock to a new position; shift: bumped the crate out of the way.
b. To shake up and down; jolt: bumped the child on her knee; was bumped about on a rough flight.
4.
a. To displace from a position within a group or organization.
b. To deprive (a passenger) of a reserved seat because of overbooking.
5. To raise; boost: bump up the price of gasoline.
6. Sports To pass (a volleyball) by redirecting it with the forearms.
jabber - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
We shall see. If Intel has been 100% successful and reliable in one aspect of computing its dissapointing with its GPU performance.Always a lot of bluster and pre-release pomp about how it will be many times better than the previous piece of crap and then it hits the floor like a dead moose dropped from 50 feet.
I dont see that changing radically.
kwantor - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
How does that work exactly?On 2560x yes, you should get 100+fps on 1024x.
MrSpadge - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
They're using "Ultra CPU" settings to stress the CPUs. People are probably not really running the game like this.MrS
nitrousoxide - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
It will be bulldozed by eight-core SNB-E, but surely it will bulldoze quad-core SNBs.flyck - Wednesday, December 8, 2010 - link
lets wait and see shall we. If each BD core is faster then each K8 core it might be very close to it.MrSpadge - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
Not sure about the US, but here in Germany the i7 860 has effectively been replaced by the i7 870 since a couple of months. It's 1 - 2 multipliers faster for a small price premium. Currently the 1100T is actually priced a hair above the 870.Given the approxiamte tie in threaded apps and wins for the 870 in lightly threaded apps and power consumption at any load level I'd certainly go with that one.
MrS
dertechie - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
They're comparing to i7 860 since they already have one on hand to play with, I suspect.mapesdhs - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
MrSpadge is right; when I went looking for one recently, I noticed many
stores had the 860 priced higher than the 870, or the gap was so small
that the 860 made no sense. So I bought an 870 instead.
Btw, it's a bit misleading IMO to include AMD oc results and yet not at
least briefly mention how well the Intel chips also oc, especially given earlier
reviews here of the i3 and other options, eg. I get 6.88 for Cinebench 11 with
my oc'd 870, 20442 for Cinebench 10 (and this isn't on the high side either).
I've found the 870 to oc better than my older 860 aswell, and not just because
of the base clock difference. It just seems to work better. I'm sure I could push
it to 4.5+, but there's no need for this on a gaming rig with two GTX 460s SLI.
Indeed, so far I find game fps scores are better with HT turned off and a
higher CPU clock, so even more headroom is possible (confirmed this effect
with 3DMark06, Unigine Heaven, Stalker COP and X3TC so far). With the
same Vcore/VTT, my 870 was ok at 4444 instead of 4270 with HT off, and
temps were lower. If you want max 3DMark06 overall scores, leave HT on;
to max out game fps rates though, try turning HT off and increase the raw
clock (I'd like to know which games benefits from HT - none of my current
tests show any gain).
Hmm, the '3dsmax 9 - SPECapc' test looks interesting, might give that a spin.
Is that a separate download to Viewperf 11?
Ian.