Printable View
Can anyone help me in finding the basic differences between these two processors AMD Phenom X3 8450 and AMD Athlon X2 6000+ processor?
if they are differed on the technical and peformance basis then it will be great.......
your replies will be very much helpful to me...........
hi there.......
some information regarding AMD Phenom X3 8450:
- Processor: AMD Phenom X3 Triple-Core
- Model: 8450
- OPN Tray: HD8450WCJ3BGH
- OPN PIB: HD8450WCGHBOX
- Operating Mode 32 Bit: Yes
- Operating Mode 64 Bit: Yes
- Revision: B3
- Core Speed (MHz): 2100
- Voltages: 1.05V - 1.25V
- Max Temps(C): 70'C
- Wattage: 95 W
- L1 Cache Size(KB): 128
- L1 Cache Count: 3
- L2 Cache Size (KB): 512
- L2 Cache Count: 3
- L3 Cache Size (KB): 2048
- CMOS: 65nm SOI
- Socket: AM2+
- AMD Business Class: No
My Review on:
AMD Athlon X2 6000+
- Processor: AMD Athlon X2 Dual-Core
- Model: 6000+
- OPN Tray: ADX6000IAA6CZ
- OPN PIB: ADX6000CZBOX
- Operating Mode 32 Bit: Yes
- Operating Mode 64 Bit: Yes
- Revision: F3
- Core Speed(MHz): 3000
- Voltages: 1.35-1.40V
- Max Temps(C): 55-63
- Wattage: 125 W
- L1 Cache Size(KB): 128
- L1 Cache Count: 2
- L2 Cache Size (KB): 1024
- L2 Cache Count: 2
- L3 Cache Size (KB): 0
- CMOS: 90nm SOI
- Socket: AM2
- AMD Business Class: No
The power of AMD Phenom X3 8450:
Since the Phenom X3 really is a quad-core Phenom with one core disabled, there's really not much new to know about it.
Each core on a Phenom has 64K of L1 cache and 512KB of L2 cache associated with it, so Phenom X3s have a total of 1.5MB of L2 cache onboard. The L2 caches are augmented by a larger 2MB level-3 cache designed to assist in data sharing between the cores. CPU geeks take note: because the Phenom shares its L3 cache between all of its cores in a round-robin fashion, we had suspected the deletion of one core might reduce L3 cache access latencies, an Achilles' heel of the Phenom architecture. Unfortunately, we weren't able to measure this effect in our testing. At 2.4GHz, the Phenom X3 and X4 have more or less identical access latencies.
The Phenoms are all based on B3-revision silicon, which squashes the unfortunate TLB bug. AMD has been selling tri-core Phenoms based on older silicon with -00 model numbers through PC vendors, but only these newer chips should make it into regular distribution channels.
Step past that issue, and your eye will probably focus on the $195 price point, where AMD presents us with a perplexing choice. You can buy a Phenom X4 9550 with four cores and a 2.2GHz clock speed, or you may choose a Phenom X3 8750 with three cores at 2.4GHz for the same price. On the face of it, giving up a CPU core in order to gain 200MHz seems like a bad bargain to me. Then again, Phenoms are currently a little low on single-threaded performance, so perhaps the compromise works. The 8750's closest competition from Intel is probably the Core 2 Duo E8400.
Things become infinitely simpler as we move down the price ladder and the quad-core options become more distant. At the Phenom X3 8450 brings AMD's new microarchitecture into territory formerly occupied by the Athlon 64 X2. The X3 8450 has a relatively low 2.1GHz clock frequency, but packs a third core; the tradeoff here is clear. This product will face off against Intel's Core 2 Duo E7200.
Power consumption and efficiency
A look at performance in various applications, let's bring power efficiency. The Extech 380803 power meter has the ability to log data, so to capture power use over a span of time. The meter reads power use at the wall socket, so it incorporates power use from the entire system—the CPU, motherboard, memory, graphics solution, hard drives, and anything else plugged into the power supply unit. The measured test systems used power across a set time period, during which time ran Cinebench's multithreaded rendering test.
Almost all of the systems had their power management features (such as SpeedStep and Cool'n'Quiet) enabled during these tests via Windows Vista's "Balanced" power options profile. The exception here was the Skulltrail system, since its BIOS didn't support SpeedStep.
Somewhat unexpectedly, the Phenom X3 8750's idle power consumption is literally no lower than the quad-core Phenoms', despite the fact that one of its execution cores is entirely disabled. Interesting.
The Phenom X3's peak power draw looks to be quite a bit lower than its quad-core counterpart's. Even so, the X3 pulls more juice than the Core 2 Quad Q6600, a quad-core processor produced on Intel's older 65nm process tech. Intel's 45nm dual-cores, the closest performance and price competition, use substantially less power.
Another way to gauge power efficiency is to look at total energy use over our time span. This method takes into account power use both during the render and during the idle time.
We can quantify efficiency even better by considering the amount of energy used to render the scene. Since the different systems completed the render at different speeds, we've isolated the render period for each system. We've then computed the amount of energy used by each system to render the scene. This method should account for both power use and, to some degree, performance, because shorter render times may lead to less energy consumption.
The Phenom X4 9750 may draw more power under load than the X3 8750, but it finishes first, allowing it to consume less energy while rendering the scene. More strikingly, Intel CPUs are vastly more power efficient overall than AMD's, by every measure.
Overclocking
The X3 8750 made it up to 2.8GHz on a 233MHz HT clock without much fuss, at stock voltage, but then it hit a wall. I tried raising the core voltage as high as 1.432V, but was unable to get it to boot Windows when clocked at 2.88GHz. Dropping down to 2.82GHz wasn't any help, either. So I settled on 2.8GHz.
Conclusions
A three-core processor is a little bit oddball, but I've made peace with the concept. For multitasking or more parallelizable workloads like image and video processing, choosing three lower speed execution cores over two higher performance ones might make some sense. This is a debatable proposition because desktop PC software has been annoyingly slow to migrate to multiple threads overall, but I see the potential merits. I can even see past the momentary road bumps we hit in programs like Windows Media Encoder, where only two cores were put to use.
The Phenom X3 processors' problems aren't in the concept, but the execution. The three cores simply aren't quick enough, individually, to make this triple-core product look appealing. They're a liability in single- and dual-threaded tasks, where the X3 8750 sometimes falls behind the much older Athlon 64 X2.
The AMD Athlon X2 6000+
The Athlon 64 X2 is a familiar quantity by now, so I'll spare you the details. The vitals on the X2 6000+ are simply this two cores at 3GHz with 1MB of L2 cache per core, primed for Socket AM2. AMD has begun shipping some 65nm processors, but this isn't one of them; it's still made using a 90nm fab process. The combination of a high clock speed and a 90nm fab process brings the X2 6000+ one less desirable trait: a max thermal power rating of 125W, well above the 65W and 89W ratings of the lower rungs of the Athlon 64 lineup.
This processor's most natural competitor is the Core 2 Duo E6700, which runs at 2.66GHz but has the higher clock-for-clock performance of Intel's Core microarchitecture going for it. Concomitant with its lower clock speed and 65nm fab process, the E6700 has a much nicer thermal design power rating of only 65W, as well. AMD seems to have built a discount into the X2 6000+ in order to make up for that shortcoming. The E6700 currently lists and the X2 6000+ undercuts Below the price point, things align more closely, with the X2 5600+ facing off against the E6600. Above this you're into quad-core territory.
Memory performance
We'll begin by measuring the memory subsystem performance of these solutions. These synthetic tests don't track closely with real-world application performance, but are enlightening anyhow.
The CPU utilization indicator in Windows Task Manager, which helps illustrate how much the application takes advantage of up to four CPU cores, when they're available. I've included these Task Manager graphics whenever possible throughout our results.
The X2 6000+ achieves higher memory throughput with lower latencies thanks to its built-in, on-die memory controller and dual channels of DDR2 800MHz memory. The Core 2 Duo E6700, meanwhile, hits a bottleneck in the form of its 1066MHz front-side bus; its chipset-based memory controller lies beyond that bus. That limits the E6700 to about 5.6GB/s of memory bandwidth, though it, too, has a dual-channel DDR2 800MHz memory subsystem.
These system architecture differences contribute to the E6700's higher memory access latencies compared to the X2 6000+, although the gap is bridged somewhat by the Core 2 Duo's so-called memory disambiguation feature, which moves memory loads ahead of stores in certain situations.
The advantage in access latencies for the X2 6000+ is consistent and pronounced, and it grows at larger step sizes. This advantage is offset, however, by the E6700's larger 4MB L2 cache. Whether the E6700 or the X2 6000+ has the upper hand in memory-constrained scenarios will depend on the application and its memory access patterns.
These are interesting things to know, but their bearing on overall performance is mixed. Let's move now to some real-world tests to see how these CPU and system architectures compete.
Power consumption and efficiency
I am trying something a little different with power consumption. Our Extech 380803 power meter has the ability to log data, so we can capture power use over a span of time. As always, the meter reads power use at the wall socket, so it incorporates power use from the entire system—the CPU, motherboard, memory, video card, hard drives, and anything else plugged into the power supply unit. I measured how each of our test systems used power during a roughly one-minute period, during which time we executed Cinebench's rendering test. All of the systems had their power management features enabled during these tests.
Right away, you can see that the CPUs live up to their thermal/power ratings—125W in the case of the X2 6000+ . The two systems' idle power consumption levels are similar, but under load, the Athlon 64 X2 draws quite a bit more power.
We can break down the power consumption data in various useful ways. We'll start with a look at idle power, taken from the trailing edge of our test period, after all CPUs have completed the render.
Finally, we can consider the amount of energy used to render the scene. Since the different systems completed the render at different speeds, we've isolated the render period for each system. We then computed the amount of energy used by each system to render the scene, expressed in watt-seconds. This method should account for both power use and, to some degree, performance, because shorter render times may lead to less energy consumption.
Conclusions
AMD's two old-school tricks, the price cut and the clock speed bump, have combined to give the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ a pretty good value proposition. Performance-wise, the X2 6000+ is slower overall than the Core 2 Duo E6700, but not by much. That may be a surprising outcome to those accustomed to seeing Core 2 Duo processors convincingly trounce the competition, but these two architectures were never that different in terms of clock-for-clock performance. It stands to reason that a 3GHz Athlon 64 X2 could nearly pull even with a Core 2 Duo at 2.66GHz. The X2 6000+ is also about 70 bucks cheaper than the E6700, making it a pretty sweet deal in the grand scheme of things. Of course, as always, there are better deals to be had at lower price points than this one, but the X2 6000+ offers a compelling alternative to the E6700.
The X2 6000+ also signals a broader realignment in the Athlon 64 X2 lineup, with price cuts across the board that make AMD's offerings more attractive as alternatives to the Core 2 Duo. Some of those Athlon 64 X2s, at lower clock speeds, have power consumption ratings of 65W or less.
for exherting a conlcusion over the entire buff......
Phenom X3 8450 VS. Athlon X2 6000+..
i will say that It depends on what applications you want to run. If you're going to be gaming, don't do a lot of multi-tasking, and mostly run basic office-type applications, the AMD Athlon X2 6000+ will be faster most of the time.
If you run mostly multi-threaded applications that could benefit from the third core, the AMD Phenom X3 8450 may be the best choice.
Of those two chips in particular though, the 6000+'s much higher clock speed will make it faster in the vast majority of circumstances.