Tests
For your convenience the results are represented in percent, 100% being the result of AMD Athlon II X4 620. Absolute results are provided in this Excel spreadsheet.
3D visualization
As we've said many times, these tasks do not require a lot of cores, but they do favor a couple of fast cores (whether the speed is achieved by architectural means or high clock rates) as well as large and/or fast cache. These benchmarks also favor Intel processors, so only Phenom II X2 565 outdoes Pentium E6800.
And judging by these results, Phenom II X4 840 hardly deserves the model name. Even the old X4 925 is faster, with a clock rate too low for modern standards. Not to mention Phenom X3 740 or Phenom II X2 565.
3D rendering
Here, cache is hardly important. But "hardly" doesn't mean "not". The number of threads is the key, but then cache plays its role, too. As you can see, Phenom II X4 840 is the fastest, having four cores operating at a high clock rate, but Phenom II X4 925 is right behind it nevertheless.
Scientific calculations
Don't mind the first place of Core i3-2100, it deserves it all right. In all other aspects, this reminds the first group of benchmarks, with the old Pentium E6800 and Phenom II X2 565 leading the way, because nothing can beat high clock rates and good cache.
Phenom II X4 925 is an outsider, and that's understandable, too: the clock rate is too low. The rest perform similarly, but the "new" Phenom II X4 840 is Phenom II X3 740.
Image editing
Intel processors have always dominated this group of tests, so the results could be expected. Only AMD processors with high clock rates can do well in these tests, which leaves us with Athlon II X2 and X3 and Phenom II X2. Higher-end processors have a harder time competing in these test conditions, so Phenom II X4 925 loses to the updated Phenom II X4 840, which, in turn, yields to Phenom II X4 740. On the one hand, this totally contradicts with how AMD positions these processors. On the other, that's what these benchmarks want and favor.
Data compression/decompression
Interestingly, all full-fledged Phenom II perform the same: two cores at 3.4 GHz are on a par with three cores at 3 GHz and four at 2.8 GHz. The effect of good multithreading support of 7-Zip. But even that is not enough for Phenom II X4 840 to do anything, um, phenomenal. It's a renamed Athlon and it performs like one. Were not AMD to rename it, it would've been the best Athlon II. Now it's one of the worst Phenom II.
Compiling
Visual Studio likes all kinds of resources, so the old Phenom II X4 925 is the leader this time. But it belongs to a different price range, too. It's here only because it has become much cheaper. Anyway, Phenom II X4 840 once again proves it's one of the worst Phenom II X4. Well, at least it's not the worst Phenom II. By the way, Phenom II X4 810 scores the same 119 points in this test, meaning that 4MB of L3 cache easily make up for the extra 500 MHz. From a practical angle, it's important that Phenom II X4 840 is on a par with Core i3-2100 here, because it's what it was most likely made for.
The result of Athlon II X3 455 is also noteworthy. It proves that increasing the clock rate of mainstream triple-core processors it is possible to elevate them to the level of mainstream quad-core CPUs.
Java
This benchmark has always favored extra cores, but never cared much about cache — just what any Athlon II needs. And what Phenom II X4 840 needs, too, as you can see. But Athlon II X4 645 somewhat spoils the victory.
Write a comment below. No registration needed!
