Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: AMD Phenom II X3 On Linux

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,532

    Default AMD Phenom II X3 On Linux

    Phoronix: AMD Phenom II X3 On Linux

    Earlier this year AMD launched the Phenom II series to succeed the original quad-core Phenom processors, with these newer desktop CPUs being built upon a 45nm process, tripling the amount of Level 3 cache to 6MB, and offering support for both DDR2 and DDR3 system memory. Prior to the launch of the Phenom II we had tested the AMD Shanghai Opterons on Linux and benchmarked these CPUs on OpenSolaris too, which were the server/workstation version of this new AMD 45nm core. With the Phenom II series there is the X3 and X4 line-up for triple-core and quad-core processors, respectively. In this article we are looking at how well the AMD Phenom II X3 710 performs under Ubuntu Linux.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13882

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    140

    Default Phenom II X4 810

    Just for the record I have Phenom II X4 810 running on a ASUS M4N78PRO motherboard. Onboard Nvidia Geforce 8300 graphics and VIA VT1708s onboard sound. This is a DDR2 motherboard. WD 1TB Green Power SATA hard drive and a Pioneer SATA DVD burner.

    I loaded Ubuntu Jaunty x86-64 and it all ran nicely except the default Nvidia non-free driver would freeze the system if I tried to resize a window with Compiz enabled. This is a driver issue, not just Ubuntu. I enabled the PPA repository (thefirstm) for updated Nvidia drives and now it hums along without error. With Cool'n Quiet enabled it idles along at 800MHz most of the time and makes very little noise with the stock cooler.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Nice article! Even if AMD isn't the leader as it was back in the Athlon days, it's still cheaper and more accesible for the desktop user.
    Does anyone know how well Phenoms go in energy saving?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    9

    Default

    why no core i7 @ 3.6ghz?

    in comparison to your article here:

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag..._core_i7&num=1

    the core i7 @ 3.6ghz, only trails in flac and 2gb file encryption but is very close to your margin of error based on the differences in the stock speed i7 results on the same hardware.

    on the other hand in several case the i7 @ 3.6 roughly doubles the performance of x3 @ 3.5ghz...

    not an intel fanboy but lets at least admit that the memory subsystem of the i7 allows it to scale with overclocking much better than the AMD part can.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xianthax View Post
    why no core i7 @ 3.6ghz?
    That is easy, total system cost. It is not always about which is the fastest, but best bang for the buck.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grege View Post
    That is easy, total system cost. It is not always about which is the fastest, but best bang for the buck.
    did you read my post?

    core i7 920 clocked @ 3.6ghz doesn't cost anymore than one clocked at 2.66, outside of a better cpu cooler, which considering this is the same system used to benchmark the core i7 @ 3.6ghz a couple weeks ago, was likely already installed...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xianthax View Post
    did you read my post?

    core i7 920 clocked @ 3.6ghz doesn't cost anymore than one clocked at 2.66, outside of a better cpu cooler, which considering this is the same system used to benchmark the core i7 @ 3.6ghz a couple weeks ago, was likely already installed...
    But, an i7 920 is twice the cost of the X3 720 to start with. Then there is the cost of the motherboard, also roughly twice the price.

    Nobody is arguing that an overclocked i7 (or even a standard i7) won't beat an X3 in every benchmark, that is not the point of the article.

    The article is about AMD chips and Linux compatibility.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xianthax View Post
    did you read my post?

    core i7 920 clocked @ 3.6ghz doesn't cost anymore than one clocked at 2.66, outside of a better cpu cooler, which considering this is the same system used to benchmark the core i7 @ 3.6ghz a couple weeks ago, was likely already installed...
    I didnt manage that on a stock cooler, testing 2 diffrent boards, and 3 diffrent cpu's, did quite easy with a 60 usd cooler, in fact 3.7 ghz.

    same test with amd 3.9 ghz on a quadcore, well....

    Thats not impressive, however a 3.6 ghz 720 BE or 710 is cheap, motherboard is also cheaper.

    Still with 3.6 core i7 920 vs a 710/720 BE clocked at 3.7-3.8(stock cooler), doesnt change the fact that pricing is the same?

    Core I7 is great though, but I5 will be better( in terms of price )

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany/NRW
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benow View Post
    Great article. Nice that there's a DDR2-3 upgrade path. I'm running an EE X2 with mtron ssd, and it's great and quiet, but new X3s are much faster now. I'll hold off for a while, 8G of DDR3 is bound to be expensive, but I guess I could get an older AM2+ board. Is it possible to run DDR2 in an AM3 mobo?
    No. but you can run an AM3 Cpu in a AM2+ mainboard and with ddr2, if the mainboard vendor provides the necessary bios-update and the mainboard can handle the wattage. Which would essentialy be the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by xianthax View Post
    not an intel fanboy but lets at least admit that the memory subsystem of the i7 allows it to scale with overclocking much better than the AMD part can.
    Let's face it: Memory-speed is not an bottleneck anymore. Great increases in memory-speed like ddr2 to ddr3 or ddr single-channel to dual-channel to triple channel with i7 usualy only lead to neglectable performance increasements (~1%) in most real-world benches.
    Edit: Yeah, there's of course no arguing about an i7 being faster. But the better memory-performance doesn't play a big role in this.
    Last edited by Zhick; 05-26-2009 at 07:40 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3

    Lightbulb

    Regarding the problems with starting Ubuntu 9.04 from USB on AMD systems, please see https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+s...ux/+bug/350946 for workarounds.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •