AMD Phenom II X4 980 Black Edition Processor Review

[MAC]

Gaming Benchmarks: Crysis / Far Cry 2 / X3

Gaming Benchmarks: Crysis / Far Cry 2 / X3

Crysis

Crysis v1.21
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti Aliasing: 0
Quality Settings: High
Global Settings: DX10 / 64-Bit

Test 1: Ice benchmark_CPU2 demo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

Still one of the most hardware intensive game on the market today, Crysis has been chosen for its obvious ability to be able to showcase the differences between platforms and to showcase just how far one will need to go in the quest for maximum performance. The game also features the renowned CryEngine, the power behind the incredible graphics, which is expected to be foundation of future titles.

Far Cry 2

Far Cry 2 1.02
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti Aliasing: 0
Quality Settings: Very High
Global Settings: DX10 Enabled

Test 1: Ranch Long Demo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

Far Cry 2 is the hot new new first-person shooter from Ubisoft's Montreal studio, and the first game to utilize the new visually stunning Dunia Engine, which will undoubtedly be used by numerous future games. Using the included Benchmarking Tool, we ran the Long Ranch demo in DX10 mode at 1680x1050 with all settings set to very high.

X3: Terran Conflict

X3: Terran Conflict 1.2.0.0
Resolution: 1680x1050
Texture Quality: High
Shader Quality: High
Antialiasing 4X
Anisotropic Mode: None
Glow Enabled

Game Benchmark
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

 

[MAC]

Gaming Benchmarks: Left 4 Dead / Particle Simulation

Gaming Benchmarks: Left 4 Dead / Particle Simulation

Left 4 Dead

Left 4 Dead (Latest Update)
Resolution: 1680x1050
Filtering: 4X MSAA / Anisotropic 8X
Graphic Settings: High
Shader Detail: Very High
Test 1: HWC Custom Timedemo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

Left 4 Dead is the latest disorienting, fast-paced zombie apocalypse mega-hit from Valve. L4D uses the latest version of the Source engine with enhancements such as multi-core processor support and physics-based animation. We test here at 1680x1050 with in-game details set to their highest levels, with MSAA 4X and AA 8X. For benching, we used a pre-recorded 20 minute timedemo taken on the No Mercy campaign during The Apartments mission.

Valve Particle Simulation Benchmark

Valve Particle Simulation Benchmark
Default
Comparison: Particle Performance Metric

Originally intended to demonstrate new processing effects added to Half Life 2: Episode 2 and future projects, the particle benchmark condenses what can be found throughout HL2:EP2 and combines it all into one small but deadly package. This test does not symbolize the performance scale for just Episode Two exclusively, but also for many other games and applications that utilize multi-core processing and particle effects. As you will see the benchmark does not score in FPS but rather in its own "Particle Performance Metric", which is useful for direct CPU comparisons.

 

[MAC]

Gaming Benchmarks: Resident Evil 5 / World in Conflict

Gaming Benchmarks: Resident Evil 5 / World in Conflict

Resident Evil 5

Resident Evil 5 1.0.0.129
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti-Aliasing: Off
Motion Blur: Off
Shadow Detail: High
Texture Detail: High
Overall Quality: High
Test 1: Built-in Timedemo
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

World in Conflict

World in Conflict v1.010
Resolution: 1680x1050
Anti-Aliasing: 4X
Anisotropic Filtering: 4X
Graphic Settings: Very High
Test 1: Built-in Benchmark
Comparison: FPS (Frames per Second)

One of the most visually stunning real-time strategy games in recent history, World in Conflict can really push systems to the brink, which is what we attempt by running the game in DirectX 10 mode at 1680x1050 with all settings maxed out. For this test we used the in-game benchmarking tool.

 

[MAC]

Power Consumption / Temperature Testing

Power Consumption / Temperature Testing

Power Consumption

For this section, every energy saving feature was enabled in the respective BIOSes and the Windows Vista power plan was changed from High Performance to Balanced.

For our idle test, we let the system idle for 15 minutes and measured the peak wattage through our UPM EM100 power meter.

For our CPU load test, we ran Prime 95 In-place large FFTs on all available threads for 15 minutes, measuring the peak wattage via the UPM EM100 power meter.

For our overall system load test, we ran Prime 95 In-place large FFTs on all available threads for 15 minutes, while simultaneously loading the GPU with OCCT v3.1.0 GPU:OCCT stress test at 1680x1050@60Hz in full screen mode.

Our Phenom II X4 980 sample had slightly higher default idle and full load core voltages than our X4 975, so it is natural to see a slightly increase in the power consumption numbers. From a wattage standpoint, this new chip obviously does not compete very well with Intel's new Sandy Bridge processors, but then again the Phenom II X4 is still based on the venerable 45nm manufacturing process.

Temperature Testing

For the temperature testing, we used both the stock AMD CPU cooler and a Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme (TRUE). The system was left to idle for 15 minutes, and then we ran Prime 95 In-place large FFTs for 15 minutes. The ambient temperature was 23°C/73.4°F. Keep in mind that the thermal sensors in most modern processors are not really accurate at measuring idle temperatures, hence the very small delta between the room temp and the idle results.

As you can see, our Phenom II X4 980 had approximately the same heat output as our X4 975. AMD did not compromise to the cool-running nature of these chips in order to squeeze out the additional 100Mhz.

 

[MAC]

Overclocking Results

Overclocking Results

After achieving some very impressive results with our Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition, we were looking forward to continuing our positive Phenom II overclocking streak. Below you will find our OC'ing achievements, which were all accomplished with up to 1.45V vCore, up to 1.35vNB, and up to 1.66Vdimm. We elected for relatively modest voltages since we wanted these frequencies to represent realistic and safe 24/7 overclocks. Obviously, some samples will be better than ours and some will be worse. Overclocking is a game of chance, although patience and skill obviously helps a little bit too.

Highest Stable CPU Overclock


Click on image to enlarge​

This is going to sound repetitive for those who have read our previous Phenom II reviews, but were once again were able to achieve a new highest stable Phenom II clock speed. 4254Mhz at 1.45V with enough stability to pass 3 hours of Prime 95 Blend, one hour's worth of LinX, and a few wPrime and SuperPI runs is quite impressive. We were able to squeeze an extra 74Mhz from this chip compared to the X4 975.

Highest Stable CPU Northbridge Overclock


Click on image to enlarge​

After being able to achieve a shocking 3066Mhz northbridge frequency with our Phenom II X6 1100T, we had hoped to hit similar numbers with our Phenom II X4 975. However, our particular sample topped out at 2778Mhz, which is at the upper-end of the average for recent Phenom II X4's. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we can report that our X4 980 did a bit better, hitting 2858Mhz at 1.35vNB. This is a very strong 44% overclock over the default 2000Mhz, and frankly any increase in the Phenom II's northbridge frequency provides very worthwhile performance improvements.

 

[MAC]

Conclusion

Conclusion

So what can we say that hasn't been said before? We commend AMD for continously introducing new models and pushing the bar higher when it comes to pure clock speed. This approach creates a cascading effect whereby consumers can buy a previously flagship processor for a nice discount. It is great from a value perspective. However, this approach doesn't address the Phenom II X4's fundamental performance deficiencies. The tables below illustrate AMD's struggle versus Intel's past and present offerings, and really highlights how badly AMD needs to get their next-generation products out.

Click on images to enlarge​

While the 3.7Ghz Phenom II X4 980 still struggles against the 2.66Ghz Core i5-750 in lightly-threaded workloads and most games, it can match or surpass the i5-750 in applications that utilize all four cores. However, the situation gets much uglier when you compare the Phenom II X4 980 to the Core i5-2500K. Aside from in wPrime, it is a slaughter across the board. Now to be fair, the Core i5-2500K is $30 more expensive than the AMD chip. However, even the $190 Core i5-2400, which we will be reviewing shortly, is also a better option than the X4 980. It has a 3.1Ghz default clock, can Turbo up to 3.3Ghz, and it will outperform the AMD chip in most workloads, often by double digits. The Phenom II X4 975 wasn't a particularly compelling option the day after Sandy Bridge processors were released, and the X4 980 isn't doing much better 4 months later.

If you're building a new system from scratch at this price point, go for a Sandy Bridge processor since there's no doubt about it's current performance superiority. However, even for those who simply want to upgrade their AM2+/AM3 system, the X4 980 is a little bit hard to recommend. This new model will be offered for $195, which is only $5 cheaper than the great six-core Phenom II X6 1090T. It is hard not to recommend paying the miniscule price premium in order to gain the two additional cores, because they honestly make a significant difference in quite a few workloads, and the 1090T's clockspeed deficit doesn't really have too much of an impact in most situations.

Honestly though, if you are a fan of AMD products, we would highly recommend that you make due with your current setup and wait a bit, since Bulldozers processors are right around the corner, and we think they are going to be well worth the wait.

AMD Phenom II X4 980 Black Edition Processor Review Comment Thread​