I have a Athlon II X4 that is actually a deactivated Phenom II X4. While force-enabling the 6Mb of L3 cache brings the performance up in seveal apps, in others (games) shutting it down allows the CPU to overclock much higher - improving performance tremendously. Note that I tested another thing on that processor : running it in dual core mode at 3.2 GHz and quad core mode at 1.6 GHz, that's the same theoretical IPS. Well, the result under such game as BioShock Infinite is that while top FPS is higher, quad core mode makes it much smoother with higher lows. It also doubles the amount of L2 cache.
i had a phenom triple core BE back in the day, fantastic thing. in contrast, i had a Phenom II Mobile, which all lack L3. the phenom II mobile was positioned by amd to compete with core 2 quads in expensive workstation laptops, but only a few laptops ever used it over a pricepoint, even the highest end ones, forcing amd out of the mobile workstation market for years. the lack of cache was really anemic, but interestingly, my A6-3400m also lacked L3 and was essentially an extension of that K10-type architecture, but did fantastic in games, overclocking like a dream, and fueling the asus K53ta's owners forum's (including me) to push its limits on notebookreview and overclockersdotnet. i feel that the difference is interesting, as the L4 conversation appears again, and eyes turn to the L4 carrying 5th gen i7, 3d cache, and cpu memory chiplets.
The athlon II x3 cpus were great value back in the day for sure. 3 cores unlocking a 4th core & a fsb overclock as far as your ram & cpu cooler would take them got you great performance. Even on my crappy 1333 mhz 2 gb sticks pushing a tripple core too a 4th core unlock & 3.5 ghz was a good boost in performance. & id guess the price wouldn't be that much higher then the athlon II x2 maybe 5 - 6$ at the most as it's a very low binned chip having 2 cores without an unlocked multiplier & working cache. As the athlon II x3 cpus were around 70 - 80$ by summer 2010. While having ddr3 is nice it's not a huge difference in performance it seems, at least not between 1066 mhz ddr2 & 1333 mhz ddr3, in a benchmark of crysis it was about 2 fps difference at very high details at 1600x1200 on a tweaktown article about ddr2 vs ddr3 performance.
For future graphs please use 0 as a starting point, because these are extremely confusing, it looks as there is monstrous difference while in reality its ~15%. The point of graphs is a visual representation of its data, unfortunately these graphs do not do that in my opinion. Love your videos just thought to bring this up to your attention :)
Eh...problem is if he did that the difference between bars wouldn't be seen, it would look like a block or two equal bars. But at least he puts the numbers or values of each bar, so you can see that its not a huge difference but the bargraph is essentially zoomed in to show the difference.
@@zachbeckner Thats the point of graphs, if there is no big difference then you will see it represented in graphs. Absolutely 0 reason to confuse your audience with this, unless hes trying to sell amd phenom II😅 there is no reason to exacerbate the difference. Its graphs 101 basically.
ahhh my first cpu ever, the phenom ii x4 BE, i bought it cheap when it was already obsolete but i had no money, intel was too expensive and amd FX was disappointing! good stuff good stuff i have used it for the better part of the last 10/15 years and it did never let me down
I'm curious about where you got the pricing for the B53 part; the closest retail equivalent was Phenom II 550 Black Edition, and according to AnandTech review at the time, it released at $105. And as someone who picked up an Athlon II x4 630 on discount for about the same price, I recall that was my dilemma with $100 budget - fast dual-core or a shiny new quad-core.
My first PC build from the ground up was with a Phenom II. Served me well for a few years. Overclocked really well. Had two additional cores that could be unlocked.
Back when AMD's top end CPU were US$250-350 range, and after dual core, it's basically adding more cores, and keeping the same price. Now, at that price, you get a low-end 6c. Pathetic.
I agree. Again I only saw that MSRP in a couple places so not sure how accurate. However as much as I like AMD they often do some really stupid things. Makes me think that the price was somewhat accurate.
I have a Athlon II X4 that is actually a deactivated Phenom II X4. While force-enabling the 6Mb of L3 cache brings the performance up in seveal apps, in others (games) shutting it down allows the CPU to overclock much higher - improving performance tremendously. Note that I tested another thing on that processor : running it in dual core mode at 3.2 GHz and quad core mode at 1.6 GHz, that's the same theoretical IPS. Well, the result under such game as BioShock Infinite is that while top FPS is higher, quad core mode makes it much smoother with higher lows. It also doubles the amount of L2 cache.
To add to the confusion, AMD in their infinite wisdom decided to release the Phenom II X4 840 without L3 cache...
i had a phenom triple core BE back in the day, fantastic thing. in contrast, i had a Phenom II Mobile, which all lack L3. the phenom II mobile was positioned by amd to compete with core 2 quads in expensive workstation laptops, but only a few laptops ever used it over a pricepoint, even the highest end ones, forcing amd out of the mobile workstation market for years. the lack of cache was really anemic, but interestingly, my A6-3400m also lacked L3 and was essentially an extension of that K10-type architecture, but did fantastic in games, overclocking like a dream, and fueling the asus K53ta's owners forum's (including me) to push its limits on notebookreview and overclockersdotnet. i feel that the difference is interesting, as the L4 conversation appears again, and eyes turn to the L4 carrying 5th gen i7, 3d cache, and cpu memory chiplets.
This feels like an old testament on what would be current day 3D-VCache and L4 cache right around the corner on consumer chips. Time really is a loop.
The athlon II x3 cpus were great value back in the day for sure. 3 cores unlocking a 4th core & a fsb overclock as far as your ram & cpu cooler would take them got you great performance.
Even on my crappy 1333 mhz 2 gb sticks pushing a tripple core too a 4th core unlock & 3.5 ghz was a good boost in performance.
& id guess the price wouldn't be that much higher then the athlon II x2 maybe 5 - 6$ at the most as it's a very low binned chip having 2 cores without an unlocked multiplier & working cache.
As the athlon II x3 cpus were around 70 - 80$ by summer 2010.
While having ddr3 is nice it's not a huge difference in performance it seems, at least not between 1066 mhz ddr2 & 1333 mhz ddr3, in a benchmark of crysis it was about 2 fps difference at very high details at 1600x1200 on a tweaktown article about ddr2 vs ddr3 performance.
Excellent video, like!
Thank you
For future graphs please use 0 as a starting point, because these are extremely confusing, it looks as there is monstrous difference while in reality its ~15%. The point of graphs is a visual representation of its data, unfortunately these graphs do not do that in my opinion. Love your videos just thought to bring this up to your attention :)
Eh...problem is if he did that the difference between bars wouldn't be seen, it would look like a block or two equal bars. But at least he puts the numbers or values of each bar, so you can see that its not a huge difference but the bargraph is essentially zoomed in to show the difference.
@@zachbeckner Thats the point of graphs, if there is no big difference then you will see it represented in graphs. Absolutely 0 reason to confuse your audience with this, unless hes trying to sell amd phenom II😅 there is no reason to exacerbate the difference. Its graphs 101 basically.
ahhh my first cpu ever, the phenom ii x4 BE, i bought it cheap when it was already obsolete but i had no money, intel was too expensive and amd FX was disappointing! good stuff good stuff i have used it for the better part of the last 10/15 years and it did never let me down
I'm curious about where you got the pricing for the B53 part; the closest retail equivalent was Phenom II 550 Black Edition, and according to AnandTech review at the time, it released at $105. And as someone who picked up an Athlon II x4 630 on discount for about the same price, I recall that was my dilemma with $100 budget - fast dual-core or a shiny new quad-core.
My first PC build from the ground up was with a Phenom II. Served me well for a few years. Overclocked really well. Had two additional cores that could be unlocked.
Lol I just replaced my phenom x3…ugh
Some of the 2 cores unlocked to quad core I had a quad core and unlocked it to 5 core and got a good wee oc on it
Back when AMD's top end CPU were US$250-350 range, and after dual core, it's basically adding more cores, and keeping the same price.
Now, at that price, you get a low-end 6c. Pathetic.
I agree. Again I only saw that MSRP in a couple places so not sure how accurate. However as much as I like AMD they often do some really stupid things. Makes me think that the price was somewhat accurate.
dont think the level three cache is worth the increased power consumption and price, except games
You have the possibility of unlocking a core or two on that AMD Phenom II X2 B53. Your actual mileage will vary.