Java

Now this benchmark lets AMD processors in general regain their standing. It's interesting how this diagram will look when Bulldozer solutions have been rolled out. Perhaps, it won't change much, because it's quite reasonable to strengthen the advantages of the K10 architecture. But, first of all, they should at least catch up in other aspects.

Web browsing

This group of tests includes applications, some of which are optimized, but not in a sense we mean when discussing different CPU architectures. Nevertheless, multi-threading works (to a certain extent). Six cores are too many and even disadvantageous due to the burden of switching between cores. But four cores are just right. As a result, fair quad-core models with large cache lead the way followed by quad-core processors with smaller cache. Behind them are CPUs manupulating with clock rates and, what's worse, hyper-threading. These models may not (and most likely will not) work as intended with non-optimized software of which there's a lot. Although makers of such processors (including AMD with its Turbo CORE) will surely reply that such applications do not require much resources and needn't be optimized. Besides, measuring performance with them is more difficult. While the former part is arguable, the latter is quite true.

Audio encoding

When we introduced audio encoding benchmark a few years ago, it was nearly a trump card of Intel processors. Then AMD won back the mainstream segment by offering more cores for the same money. But as you can see, Phenom II X4 970 does catch up with the "rival" with the same amount of cores. Hexacore solutions also put up a good show, leaving the rest behind.

Video encoding

AMD processors demonstrate clear advantage in video encoding. Just the junior hexacore model lags behind. It may have Turbo CORE working less aggressively. Perhaps, because it has to fit into a stricter thermal envelope of 95W.

Games

Today's games cannot use six cores efficiently. The fact that Phenom II X6 don't lag behind the senior quad-core processors must be solely the effect of Turbo CORE. The remaining processors form an expected ladder. Just the minor advantage of Athlon II X4 645 over Athlon II X4 640 suggests that cache size is also of certain importance. That starting from a certain clock rate, performance may be bottlenecked by insufficient cache.

Conclusions

The overall score quite precisely describes processor standings which marketing specialists could have in mind when setting prices. So, formally, we can say that every processor is in its place and is worth buyers' attention. Although, considering architectural differences, you should choose what's more important for you, judging by the results above.

We can add that Phenom II X4 970 needs just a bit more to equalize the Phenom II X4 and Core i5-700 series in rights. Both product lines offer solutions that currently give you most performance for your money. Of the rest, Phenom II X6 1055T may be the least obvious choice. Subjectively, an unlocked Phenom II X6 1075T seems a better variant. Of course, if your tasks are well-parallelized. Otherwise, classic quad-core processors will give you the best performance today and a reserve for the future.

PowerColor HD5870 1GB provided by PowerColor.

Write a comment below. No registration needed!