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
Finally - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
one thing is missing.I'm much less interested in overclocking than I am interested in undervolting.
3 Weeks ago I bought two Phenom II X2 555 BE C3s for my girlfriend's new PC and mine - and guess what? Both unlocked to quad-cores easily. I was even able to lower the CPU voltage from 1.251V to a mere 1.141V. As a power consumption-meter is on its way to me, I will be able to report power saving numbers, if anyone is interested.
All this 4-core-goodness I got for a mere 75€ a pop.
If that's not great performance for an unbeatable price I don't know what is...
chrnochime - Wednesday, December 8, 2010 - link
And like was mentioned in the article it's not guaranteed that whoever buys the 555/565 BE would be able to unlock the other two cores and run them just fine without instability.When it's a gamble and not 100% success rate, people who value their time and not wanting to return CPUs and getting another to test tend to either go down to the cheaper x3 or pay a bit more for the i3.
ajp_anton - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
I noticed you're using the x264 pass1 test for load power consumption.Is this really a good choise? All cores aren't maxed out in this test. This is obvious when knowing what x264 is actually doing in pass1 versus pass2, and comparing the speeds confirm this.
In pass2, all Phenom II's (x2, x4, x6) have exactly the same speed per core per GHz.
In pass1, the speed bumps are far from the nice linear scaling in pass2. The x6 is only twice (2.13x) as fast as the x2, so almost two cores are idle.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
You'll see this change in the next month when we revamp our Bench suite :)Take care,
Anand
nitrousoxide - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
Yeah, expecting that. I don't quite understand why putting the stupid sysmark on the test...it just can't tell any difference between processors with different performance :)iwodo - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
There are rumours floating around that Intel is gonna make BIG price cut soon for holiday season due to lower then expected demand, clearing stocks for Sandy Bridge, as well as more people buying iPad then PCs.SandyBridge will be a top to bottom chip, leaving Current Nehalem for Servers. ( Which is doing VERY well in that area )
Some of the performance data are already leaked, the only things that is left is on the GPU side as well as Official benchmarks.
yuriylsh - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
just got a notification from Micro Center about $80 instant savings on i7-950, which means $200 for 3GHz Core i7 - not a bad deal. Is it starting?RyuDeshi - Wednesday, December 8, 2010 - link
MicroCenter has been selling the 950 for $199 for a long time now. It has been on SlickDeals front page many times.. They just do that to get traffic to their store, then try to sell you everything else you don't need.jaydee - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
The Phenom II X2 565 is 18% (idle) and 23% (load) more efficient than the Phenom II X2 555?MrSpadge - Tuesday, December 7, 2010 - link
The board has changed to a much more efficient one. It's approximately a constant offset between both configurations, as evidenced by the differences in idle numbers.MrS