Power-consumption and HEXUS.bang4buck
We've established that AMD's Phenom X4 9850 BE hasn't yet been able to catch Intel's Core 2 Quad in terms of performance. Now, we'll take a look at power-draw to see how a Phenom X4 9850 BE-based system compares to a Core 2 Quad-based system.
As always, we're using our watt-meter to take power measurements at the mains. As highlighted in our Phenom 9600 review, the Intel platform will save a little power with the use of lower-power DDR3 memory but should, in theory, give it back with a power-unfriendly northbridge.
Our first chart, illustrating the power-draw of each system at a near-zero load, marginally favours the AMD Phenom X4-based systems.
Load power-draw however provides an unpleasant surprise for the 2.5GHz Phenom X4 9850 BE system, which consumes a substantial 51 watts more than the 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad Q6600 system. In our November review of the Phenom 9600, we acknowledged that our unreleased sample processor may not be indicative of the 9600 that is now shipping. Our theory, as it turns out, was correct. The Phenom 9600 system does creep in just below the Core 2 Quad, though the margin is of only a few watts.
HEXUS.bang4buck
Assessing our HEXUS.bang4buck rating is never easy. As with our Phenom 9600 review, we'll be using three graphs to make it easier to comprehend. The first will show bang4buck in a single-threaded scenario, namely our HEXUS.PiFast benchmark. The second will show bang4buck in multi-threaded gaming, for which we'll be using our Quake 4 results. The third will illustrate multitasking, using the time taken to encode multi-threaded DivX whilst playing a 1080p QuickTime video.
| |
HEXUS.PiFast | Quake 4 | Multitasking | Average UK Price | Average Euro Price | Average US Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMD Phenom 9850 | 82.0 | 90.8 | 92.7 | £152 | €201 | $237 |
| AMD Phenom 9750 | 78.4 | 86.4 | 87.9 | £137 | €177 | $215 |
| AMD Phenom 9600 | 76.1 | 81.6 | 84.3 | £135 | €211 | $215 |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 | 100 | 100 | 100 | £144 | €192 | $252 |
So, the above table shows performance in percentage form and it just so happens that Intel dominates the competition, claiming 100 per cent on each benchmark. In order to get our HEXUS.bang4buck, we simply divide the benchmark percentage by the processor price. Simple enough, right? For our comparison, we'll be using the average UK price calculated by comparing prices from SCAN.co.uk, Ebuyer.com and Microdirect.co.uk. Onto the graphs we go.
Please head on over to here to see the US Dollar and Euro HEXUS.bang4buck graphs.
What can we say? On occasion, pictures speak louder than words. This is one of those occasions. In terms of single-threaded performance, Intel's Core 2 Quad Q6600 trumps all of AMD's Phenom X4s in the HEXUS.bang4buck rating.
The Phenom X4 9850 BE has a higher clock speed than its Q6600 rival, yet, it wasn't able to compete in terms of speed in our single-threaded test, and to make matters worse, it costs more than Intel's better-performing alternative.
No changes in our Quake 4 HEXUS.bang4buck rating. Spending more on the Phenom X4 9850 BE will get you less in terms of performance.
Multitasking, where all four processors proved their worth, is closer fought. The Phenom X4s do offer multitasking performance at a reasonable price, unfortunately for AMD, Intel offers better performance-per-pound by roughly 10 per cent.
HEXUS.bang4buck summary
In our Phenom 9600 review last November, we did the math and concluded that "AMD's newest CPU isn't the fastest and neither is its DX10.1-toting graphics cards, so as a platform the cutting-edge interconnect don't really count for much, do they? Spider's good, sure, but you can buy faster for the same kind of money, folks. The very fact that G0-stepping Q6600s overclock to 3GHz easily doesn't hurt, either."
Now, some six months later, we've done the math once again and the same still applies. Sure, AMD has edged closer with its new Phenom X4 9850 BE, but you can still buy a faster Intel processor for roughly the same amount.
