iXBT Labs - Computer Hardware in Detail






AMD Phenom X3 8750

Stakes on the odd.

June 25, 2008

<< Previous page

     Next page >>

Non-professional tests


Outperformed again, but not fatally.


The tendency remains: Phenom X3 8750 is outperformed by Core 2 Duo E6600, but not fatally.


A very small defeat. AMD fans, who like to play games, will certainly ignore such an insignificant lag and won't abandon their favorite platform.

Non-professional photo processing

All Phenoms are not doing well in this group of tests. But it did not come as a surprise again, if you knew about test results of Phenom X4 in the previous article.

Total non-professional score

So many coincidences in Phenom tests... The same here: having earned different scores, Phenom X3 8750 is outperformed by Core 2 Duo E6600 exactly by 6 points - both in professional and non-professional tests.

Estimated power consumption*

* We actually measure power consumption of the on-board VRM, so our readings may be higher, because VRM does not have the efficiency factor of 100%.


100% load

If you compare Phenom X3 with Phenom X4, you may even be pleased: 94 W versus 130 W. However, we cannot compare Phenoms with Core 2 Duo/Quad dry-eyed.


AMD stirs up mixed feelings in many people, but all of us, both fans and adversaries, admit one thing: this company always manages to wiggle out of any kind of trouble. :) This time it came up with a decision correct in terms of both technology and marketing. Ok, they screwed up their quad-core processors (unfortunately, the competitor offers such products as well, so direct comparisons are possible, and they do not favor AMD), but they still get their share of the pie with an original solution, not available from their competitor. It will be more difficult to compare them, and there will be more chances to confuse common users. We'll not be surprised to hear something along the lines of: "AMD offers three cores vs. competitor's two cores in this segment; so, applications, where Intel CPUs outperform ours, are too old to use all cores properly," as an argument for Phenom X3.

In fact, each joke holds a grain of truth: have a look at the test results in Adobe Photoshop, or better still, in the x264 encoding test (see the spreadsheet with detailed results). No one doubts that three AMD cores (operating at the same frequency as two cores from Intel) in a well-optimized application have a real chance to win, even if a single core is weaker than competitor's. The main problem here is that there are very few such applications now. Even the share of software optimized for two cores hardly reaches one fourth by the most optimistic estimates. To say nothing of three or more cores. The recent comparison of dual-core and quad-core processors has dotted all i's.

Having analyzed the aforesaid, we start to understand the positioning of Phenom X3: it's a processor for fans, optimists, and eccentric people. AMD fans will be buying X3 (that's right, we think it will be X3, not X4) because it's inexpensive (they got used to it), it's not much slower than equally-clocked dual-core processors from Intel (they will reconcile themselves to it), and in some cases it's even faster (a matter to be proud of and to scorn Intel fans in forums). Optimists will buy Phenom X3 in hopes that the share of programs optimized for 3+ cores will grow, so that their decision sometimes becomes strategically correct. Eccentric people will install such processors only because three cores are cool - they are not just two or four cores.

Speaking of common users, which are neither biased to the manufacturer nor optimistic about software development trends, nor want to surprise everybody with their PC configurations, Phenom X3 will probably become just another processor with a popular $200 price tag. There is nothing special about this processor, but it's not a bad choice either.

Memory modules provided by Corsair Memory Russia.

Write a comment below. No registration needed!

<< Previous page

Article navigation:

Page 1: Introduction, testbeds, benchmarks

Page 2: Professional benchmarks

Page 3: Non-professional benchmarks

blog comments powered by Disqus

  Most Popular Reviews More    RSS  

AMD Phenom II X4 955, Phenom II X4 960T, Phenom II X6 1075T, and Intel Pentium G2120, Core i3-3220, Core i5-3330 Processors

Comparing old, cheap solutions from AMD with new, budget offerings from Intel.
February 1, 2013 · Processor Roundups

Inno3D GeForce GTX 670 iChill, Inno3D GeForce GTX 660 Ti Graphics Cards

A couple of mid-range adapters with original cooling systems.
January 30, 2013 · Video cards: NVIDIA GPUs

Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Surround 5.1

An external X-Fi solution in tests.
September 9, 2008 · Sound Cards

AMD FX-8350 Processor

The first worthwhile Piledriver CPU.
September 11, 2012 · Processors: AMD

Consumed Power, Energy Consumption: Ivy Bridge vs. Sandy Bridge

Trying out the new method.
September 18, 2012 · Processors: Intel
  Latest Reviews More    RSS  

i3DSpeed, September 2013

Retested all graphics cards with the new drivers.
Oct 18, 2013 · 3Digests

i3DSpeed, August 2013

Added new benchmarks: BioShock Infinite and Metro: Last Light.
Sep 06, 2013 · 3Digests

i3DSpeed, July 2013

Added the test results of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 and AMD Radeon HD 7730.
Aug 05, 2013 · 3Digests

Gainward GeForce GTX 650 Ti BOOST 2GB Golden Sample Graphics Card

An excellent hybrid of GeForce GTX 650 Ti and GeForce GTX 660.
Jun 24, 2013 · Video cards: NVIDIA GPUs

i3DSpeed, May 2013

Added the test results of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770/780.
Jun 03, 2013 · 3Digests
  Latest News More    RSS  

Platform  ·  Video  ·  Multimedia  ·  Mobile  ·  Other  ||  About us & Privacy policy  ·  Twitter  ·  Facebook

Copyright © Byrds Research & Publishing, Ltd., 1997–2011. All rights reserved.