AMD's Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 13, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Adobe Photoshop CS4 Performance
To measure performance under Photoshop CS4 we turn to the Retouch Artists’ Speed Test. The test does basic photo editing; there are a couple of color space conversions, many layer creations, color curve adjustment, image and canvas size adjustment, unsharp mask, and finally a gaussian blur performed on the entire image.
The whole process is timed and thanks to the use of Intel's X25-M SSD as our test bed hard drive, performance is far more predictable than back when we used to test on mechanical disks.
Time is reported in seconds and the lower numbers mean better performance. The test is multithreaded and can hit all four cores in a quad-core machine.
Intel's architectures are definitely favored in our Photoshop test; the 965 BE can't outperform the cheaper Q9550.
DivX 8.5.3 with Xmpeg 5.0.3
Our DivX test is the same DivX / XMpeg 5.03 test we've run for the past few years now, the 1080p source file is encoded using the unconstrained DivX profile, quality/performance is set balanced at 5 and enhanced multithreading is enabled:
Our lighter encoding test puts the 965 BE above all of the Core 2 Quads and just behind the i7 920.
x264 HD Video Encoding Performance
Graysky's x264 HD test uses the publicly available x264 codec (open source alternative to H.264) to encode a 4Mbps 720p MPEG-2 source. The focus here is on quality rather than speed, thus the benchmark uses a 2-pass encode and reports the average frame rate in each pass.
The 965 BE manages to pull ahead of the i7 920 in the first pass of our test, however the second more strenuous pass clearly goes to the i7. Compared to the Core 2 Quads however, the 965 is without an equal - it's better than the Q9650.
Windows Media Encoder 9 x64 Advanced Profile
In order to be codec agnostic we've got a Windows Media Encoder benchmark looking at the same sort of thing we've been doing in the DivX and x264 tests, but using WME instead.
Slightly faster than the i7 920 again? Hooray for AMD.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
54 Comments
View All Comments
MODEL3 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
Well if it's true that Core i5 750 is going to launch at 6th of September at 196$,then the only option for AMD is to drop the price around what you suggested! (199$)
Traditionally AMD official pricing translates around 5% lower (in actual street price) than Intel equivalent price
(although in the recent years Intel had various questionable tactics like direct rebates to Retailers & to System Builders without a specific sales target - in the Europe region)
I just hope that AMD is clever to understand, that in no way has to release a higher clocked model (975 3,6GHz, & 985 3,8GHz)
before Intel release in Q1 2010 & in Q3 2010 the higher clocked models of i5 7XX (i5 760 2,8GHz & i5 770 2,93GHz) (if this is indeed the Intel future roadmap at 196$)
Already some sites, that are with Intel side can easily fix the testing method, in order the Core i5 750 to appear more powerful than even a future 975 3,6GHz!
The performance difference between Phenom II architecture & Nehalem architecture can have wide variation depending on the testing method!
So if Intel wants, it can influence some sites to use specific methods to declare a Core i5 750 better than even a future 975 3,6GHz!
What good will do to AMD to release a 975 at a 245$ in Q4 2009?
Of cource AMD can price it at at 219$ (20$ difference with 965) but the whole situation is becoming depressing (they are fighting for +20$ for only a quarter until Q1 2010)
Well, i guess they must make everything, in order to survive!
GeorgeH - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
"AMD ought to get rid of the Xn suffix and just use simple model numbers at this point."I understand what you're saying, but I think it's the most straightforward processor naming scheme in a long time. You get the architecture, cores, relative speed, and locked/unlocked instantly. Unless AMD is going to stop selling 2 and 3 core chips and never offer more than 4 cores in the consumer space, I say keep the "Xn".
Intel could really learn from AMD here; from your writeup on ix branding, I fully expect to be needing a decoder ring to figure out what a particular i3/i5/i7 really is.
Drazick - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
It seems Intel advantage is more about optimization than much better processor, is this assumption true?Why isn't AMD put efforts into that?
Thanks.
Drazick - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
It should be easy to create some test scenarios and measure time.Many High End users use those kind of software.
GourdFreeMan - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
The problem with benchmarking such packages is that depending on their target application they will not stress systems in a uniform way. Large matrix computation will likely be bound by memory bandwidth, while numeric computation at machine precision will hinge on FPU/SSE performance, and symbolic calculations will largely be bound by integer and branching performance. There isn't one uniform application that is representative of the needs of all scientists and engineers.XtAzY - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
I got my i7 920 for $200 at MicroCenter, much cheaper than $280 online deals! This AMD definately does not worth $245!!Griswold - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
And how much did you pay for the mobo and triple channel kit, dumbass?Exar3342 - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
LOL, your the dumbass. :)6GB triple Channel - (Newegg) $85.00
8GB dual channel (newegg) $95.00
X58 MB - $165-175
AM3 MB $85-120
So you are talking a difference or $40-60, which if you can get the i7 at Microcenter (I was there last week and they had a ton) erases any price differences.
Griswold - Saturday, August 15, 2009 - link
Oh, lets look at the other article anand just put up, dumbass. Your shit doesnt quite add up...rhog - Thursday, August 13, 2009 - link
Since when can you get a "good" x58 for lest than 200?I assume the 200 Bucks is a Mail in rebate price as well. I own 2 i7 920 great processor but hardly any faster at 3.6ghz than a 3.8ghz AMD 955 (at most 20%) which is in line with the "real" 100-125 Buck difference in cost. You can get a really nice Video card upgrade for that money. Don't forget the i7 920 never runs at 2.6ghz but always overclocks itself making it hard to do a good clock for clock comparison. The AMD 965 is better than Core2 and I doubt that the Core i5 will be faster than a Core i7 so they should compete well. Oh, and the Core i5 will overclock itself as well I here as much a 3 mults