Phenom X3 8750 reviews and Overclocking

You can find a whole bunch of reviews on the X3 line now. On average they OC rather well, around 2.8ghz. Lower results claimed they couldn't push past 2.6ghz, others got as high as 3.1ghz. Nice amount of variation, but more likely due to reviewers missing out on key OC elements.

At any rate, on of the more interesting reviews that I found was a comparison on the mid-range level. All the benchmarks include stock and OC'ed results for the X3 8750 @3ghz, and an X2 5000+ BE @3.4ghz. Other Phenoms at stock were tossed in the mix for deeper reference, and an Intel E6750 @ 2.66ghz.

Neoseeker

The differences between multi-threaded apps, and single-threaded apps are quite significant. An OC'ed 5kBE is still a damn good processor for the AMD camp.




For comparison to Intel processors, I had to hit up another site (PC Perspective). Unfortunately, they didn't include OC results with their benches, so you'll have to go with the previous relative placement to make a decent guess.

Our Lame MP3 encoding test really only uses two cores so the X3 8750 performs just as well as AMD's quad-core parts.

Click to expand...

Games however are hit and miss across the board. It just depends on how the gaming engine handles multiple cores, and in reality is going to depend a whole lot more on your videocard.





Now, being that there's a dozen sites out there, all doing their own review with different benchmarks, there's a lot left to be analyzed and sorted out. So before I go any further, let me just make something rather clear.

Intel has better processors

With that comes better speed, top of every review chart out there, lower power requirements, and less heat dissipation. AMD can't beat them on any of these things, even price/performance is a gray muddy world, and really depends on the moment. Why bother reading any of this, or posting in the thread if you're a Intel fan? Well, simply don't.

I have an AM2+ board, with a 5kBE. These things are relevant to me, and a handful of others on this site. Try not to bog us down by stating the obvious aforementioned above. It simply makes more sense for me (and others) to continue with the platform that's already paid for and running. A single upgrade makes much more sense that a whole new system.

Now then, moving along.

I am curious as to personal experiences with an X3, if anyone has one up and running. Seems to me, on a general basis considering the dozen reviews that I've looked through, the price/performance is slightly less than an X4, until you consider the differences in overclocking. With a x4 9850 generally you can hit about 3 ghz. This is the same with an X3, 3ghz a little over. Considering the same architecture, where's the real benefit? The only thing I can think of that might make a difference is the L3 cache is shared between only 3 cores, instead of 4, and is the same size. (c0)512K+(c1)512K+(c2)512K+2048K= 3.5MB. The other thing, that would hopefully happen, is that they'll hit better yields by disabling the slowest core in a quad, and making for higher potential overclocking. Time will tell on that matter.

Where's the x3 Black Edition?

Ah, well, I'm stupidly interested in the X3, it's at a nice price point, shows better results in a handful of things than my 5kBE, and is a viable upgrade option for the summertime. Post your thoughts/observations, and OC results if ya got em.

Thanks!

Ah, another review site that I have a good amount of respect for is Bit-Tech.net

They managed to push the x3 8750 to a nice 3.3ghz


Not to mention they do their benches with OC'd results (@ 3ghz) and use a wide array of processors all in the same graph...

Unfortunately, they report using HTML instead of a pic, so ya'll will just have to go and check it out yourselves. In their conclusion it basically comes down to a matter of pricing. The X3 is too close to a quad to make any sense as an upgrade path, once it drops another 20-30$ or so, it'll be more in its place price-wise. Overclocking results look rather promising, and unlike some other reviews, it's more limited by heat, and the fact that AMD Overdrive didn't seem to be working correctly. Their HT link locked up at 2.2ghz, but if they could have pushed it further, with better cooling, overclocking may have continued well past 3.3ghz

What I found interesting in a handful of the benches was how high this X3 made it up the charts when OC'd. Half the time it topped out the AMD line, and clock for clock against an older X2, seems to have a ~15% performance advantage. This was all well and good until I got to one of the last pages and damn near burned out my eyes when I saw the amount of power this thing can suck on...

OC @ 3ghz, and 1.425v on the chip, when loaded, draws just about 350w of power.

Q6700 at 300w stock speeds
E8500 at 200w stock speeds

Sharkey Extreme has a pretty good setup for their reviews, and more often than not overlook many releases of new hardware. Normally I use them for their weekly CPU and memory charts, but seeing as how they did a review of the X3, I decided to take a look.

Benchmarks are pretty similar to all the rest, I'd appreciate their layout if they ranked their results from best to worst, but at least they have the reviewed target standing out with a big red bar, with the amd and intel processors ranking in as green and blue respectively. Take a peek if ya like, but I've seen enough of where it stands at stock speeds.

Overclocked, they reached 2.94ghz before hitting their max, only using 1.25v and keeping a rather low temperature. Not bad for a release sample, and about the norm for B3 phenoms.

The core temperature of the 2.4 GHz Phenom X3 8750 was noticeably lower, sitting in the 35-38 degrees C at idle and 42-45 degrees C at load, compared to high 40's and low 50's, respectively, for a same-speed Phenom X4.

Click to expand...

Another thing to note from their results was load power consumption at stock speeds. Lower compared to the X4 line, and even a handful of intel quads. Their idle consumption was a bit high, but considering the margins (10% more than a QX9650, 10% less than an X4) it doesn't seem so bad.




A little bit of respect goes a long way in my mind, and while they acknowledge that Intel is far superior, they still give the X3 some props for being a bit outside the box. I can't stand review sites that beat this processor to death for trying something different. It's been done before, and should really be left to the fan-boys of the world, and not a respectable reviewer.

As it is, their conclusion summed things up rather well.

Conclusion

The implications of the Phenom X3 8750 launch are very clear, and AMD is providing a "better than dual core" solution to compete directly against Intel's Core 2 Duo. This should also ring the dinner bell for systems using the low-cost AMD 780G chipset and its Radeon HD 3200 integrated graphics. The Phenom X3 operates at lower thermal and power specifications than a quad core X4, making it a perfect match for the 780G and an attractive upgrade option for current AM2 owners. Budget minded gamers will like the 2.4 GHz clock speed, but at the end of the day, the Phenom X3 has done nothing to change Intel's stranglehold at the high-end.

Pros:

* Better-than Dual Core Multithreading
* Lower-than Quad Core Power and Thermal Requirements
* Good Overclocking
* Updated B3 Core
* Entry-level Pricing

Cons:

* Lackluster Gaming Performance
* 65nm
* 2.4 GHz Max Clock

Click to expand...

That actually makes me wonder how low you could take the voltage while keeping stock speeds actually... Might be able to lower power requirements without effecting performance. Would it be more attractive to anyone if those watt requirements dropped another 20w or so?

Mmm... Curious...

Otherwise, yeah cdawall, they're just looking at Intel 45nm process and imagining that it's going to make some huge difference. Doesn't have so much to do with the process as the architecture, and I don't believe for a minute that a smaller process on the same architecture would do anything besides lower temperatures by a marginal amount.

There might be some kind of incompatibility with it. Try a couple other stress-test tools before anything else.

http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/385/Orthos_Stress_Prime_2004.html is a pretty good one. Most people swear their stability on that one. If your temps are good for the other tests, you might need a little tap on the voltage, or Prime is just being stupid.

Eh, Overdrive is new, the rest are time-proven. It'll get there, just needs time to establish itself. Yes, Orthos is a redesign of Prime95 to handle multiple cores. It might work better. The only stability testing I really bother with is gaming benchmarks, or better, playing games.

Absolutely. lol. The sole reason I haven't bought one is the price. AMD has a way of letting things trickle down though. They've been out less than a month, by the end of summer I'm hoping to see one at 140$ or less.