Reviews of the AMD Phenom X3 8750

By | April 24, 2008, 7:07am PDT

Summary: Following my post yesterday on the AMD Phenom X3s, you asked for some performance numbers on the X3 8750. Below is a roundup of reviews that have been posted in the past 24 hours. The verdict is mixed. The Phenom X3 is a nice upgrade for those who already have a system with a compatible AM2 [...]

AMD Phenom X3Following my post yesterday on the AMD Phenom X3s, you asked for some performance numbers on the X3 8750. Below is a roundup of reviews that have been posted in the past 24 hours.

The verdict is mixed. The Phenom X3 is a nice upgrade for those who already have a system with a compatible AM2 motherboard, but it can’t match the performance of similarly-priced Intel Core 2 Duo processors on most tests. And for an extra $30 you can now step up to the Core 2 Quad Q6600.

Ars Technica: Toliman processors show significant advantages over dual-core products in some cases, but a mixture of software glitches and scaling issues prevent AMD’s Phenom X3 from showing a significant advantage in other tests.

Bit-tech.net: Of course, there are occasions when the new AMD triple-core processor shows its muscle, but it’s dwarfed by the Core 2 Quad Q6600 (which is selling for just £7 more than the X3 8750). This makes it hard to recommend the X3 8750 to anyone building a new system today. . .But, there are of course people out there that have already invested in socket AM2 or socket AM2+ and it’s for these people that the Phenom X3 8750 may be attractive.

Computer Shopper: For less than $200, Athlon X2 owners with AM2 motherboards can upgrade to a faster CPU and gain an additional core in the bargain. When building a system from the ground up, the Phenom X3 isn’t going to match similarly priced dual-core Intel CPUs in single tasks, but its additional core may make it an attractive choice for heavy multitaskers.

Hot Hardware: Throughout testing, the Phenom X3 8750 performed in-line with our expectations, outpacing the dual-core chips more often than not, and falling behind the quad-cores in all of the multi-threaded applications. Despite a huge clock speed disadvantage, the Phenom X3 8750 was able to outpace the 3.0GHz Core 2 Duo E6850 in a handful of tests, and in all but a couple of tests it was faster than the 3.2GHz Athlon 64 X2 6400+ as well.

Legit Reviews: When it comes to performance the AMD Phenom X3 8750 performed much faster than the AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ and actually beat out the AMD Phenom X4 9600 (Running the TLB Patch) in a number of benchmarks. It was also able to perform better than the Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 and Core 2 Duo E6750 as seen in the benchmarks.

MaximumPC: If performance is king, you should avoid tri core and go straight to a quad. If you’re on the fence between a dual and a tri, we would take a tri-core Phenom over a dual-core Athlon 64 any day of the week, but up against an Intel Core 2 Duo, it gets a little trickier.

PC Perspective: AMD’s new triple-core Phenom X3 8×50-series of processors isn’t a slam dunk in performance or value compared to existing AMD parts but they do add a new twist to the constantly raging budget computer battle.

The Tech Report: 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 X3 8450 almost always does so. And the cores aren’t quick enough to really sell the three-way concept when they are all working together.

TweakTown: Phenom, while being a good processor is in no way a replacement for the Core 2. If you’re still after the highest performance you can get, Core 2 is the choice for now. However, if you’re after a more affordable option with an upgrade pathway for quite some time, Phenom is what you’re after.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

John Morris

http://blogs.zdnet.com/processors/?page_id=146

Biography

John Morris

John Morris is a former executive editor at CNET Networks and senior editor at PC Magazine. He now works for a private investment firm, which may at any time invest in companies whose products are discussed in this blog, and no disclosure of securities transactions will be made. No investment advice is offered in this blog. All duties are disclaimed.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
7
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Spend the extra 30 on the CPU!
Sparhawk_z 27th Apr 2008
If you are going for good performance, at this stage in the game, the Intel is well worth the extra 30 bucks! Performance and Intel go hand in hand at the moment. It will swing back to AMD, but overclocking should be considered.
Similarly, if you are not going to overclock, why spend the 30 on aftermarket cooling?
After all the bugs (okay I'm referring to the one issue with the older Phenoms') I'm sticking with my C2D!

Today's games make excellent use of multiple cores, and a better CPU can certainly result in much better gaming performance. Try Crysis. It will rape your CPU as well as GPU. Assassins creed is much the same...the same goes for a lot of DX10 titles around nowadays.
0 Votes
+ -
X3 and AMD 780G chipset
Grayson Peddie 24th Apr 2008
One thing that I want to point this out to anyone is that AMD Phenom X3 can mate pretty well with AMD 780G chipset, when it comes to Hybrid Crossfire technology, as this is good for casual gamers who want to play games--but probably not the latest, as it's very GPU-intensive.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Reviews of the AMD Phenom X3 8750
dave@... 24th Apr 2008
mmhhhh.... now what exactly are they trying to accomplish here... also when will the software start to take advantege of the cores.
I didn't read all the reveiws, but as far as I know, Intel is king for performance/overclocking.

Besides, $30 doesn't seem to make that much of a difference since I don't care about performance/overclocking. But really, it is the games which uses GPU more than CPU.

As long as I'm going for good performance, overclocking is not really a necessity for me.

I could use $30 that I save by getting Phenom instead of Core 2 Quad and put it towards getting a 750GB hard drive instead of 500GB hard drive.

Or, how about a GPU? Yep!
Sound card? Sure!
Even a better after-market cooler!
0 Votes
+ -
Spend the extra 30 on the CPU!
Sparhawk_z 27th Apr 2008
If you are going for good performance, at this stage in the game, the Intel is well worth the extra 30 bucks! Performance and Intel go hand in hand at the moment. It will swing back to AMD, but overclocking should be considered.
Similarly, if you are not going to overclock, why spend the 30 on aftermarket cooling?
After all the bugs (okay I'm referring to the one issue with the older Phenoms') I'm sticking with my C2D!

Today's games make excellent use of multiple cores, and a better CPU can certainly result in much better gaming performance. Try Crysis. It will rape your CPU as well as GPU. Assassins creed is much the same...the same goes for a lot of DX10 titles around nowadays.
First of all, I should point out that multiple cores really helps when you're a big multi-tasker and you have several applications open instead of one. This is especially noticeable if you have applications that hog the CPU or heavily use CPU-dependent resources

Heavy media applications also benefit greatly: Since the screen can be broken into multiple parts, most video operations can be broken into chunks and split between the cores.

Games also benefit greatly, especially in physics calculations.

Most modern video applications support multiple cores, as well as many of the latest games. I think the beginnings of a revolution is starting to happen, and I think it's only a matter of time before applications that take advantage of multiple cores are common.

I'm on a quad core system, and right now I have three of the cores rendering a ray traced image, with the fourth core handling pretty much everything else. It's great watching the Flash ads running very smoothly while I'm using a CPU intensive task like ray tracing at the same time.

That simply would not be possible with a single core - the ray tracer would eat up all of the CPU, causing my Flash ads to stutter and freeze.

I also played a computer game earlier while the ray tracer was running - on a single core system, that would make the game unplayable.

In fact, it has really given me new interest in ray tracing, since I can be very productive even while it's rendering an image.

On a single core system, I'd never even think about rendering anything that took longer than overnight, since the computer would be almost useless while it was running.

On my quad-core system, on the other hand, I just limit it to 2 or 3 cores when I want to do productive work, which makes multiple day renders entirely feasible. Of course, when I'm not using my computer I open up all four cores, allowing it to crank away like crazy on the image happy. Since the ray tracing program is aware of multiple cores, so it can render almost four times as fast during those times, allowing me a huge benefit just from that.

This has allowed me to create images much larger and more complex than I was ever willing to create on a single core system, and at the same time allow me to use my computer for other tasks without slowing down. It's a great benefit to me happy.
So many reviewers seem to be oblivious to the world of an office worker in real-time show the need for an extreme amount of multi-tasking. Often with very dis-similar applications and many that are resource hogs. Add to that the need to keep IT budgets low, and you'll quickly see the need for a processor like this. $30 might not seem like much to a single user building his own system. But, on a per machine basis to a company needing to buy many systems, this can make or break a deal.
With X3 $165, and x4 $195 you could use that extra 30 bucks for more RAM.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix