AM2+... first phenoms... i doubt they'll make a lot of difference. 4 cores were not all that useful for games back then. Phenom2 would, but that's AM3, even if backwards compatible with AM2+...

I have Phenom 9950 BE, 2.6Ghz variant. They have L3 cache, it should help.

I also have the special Phenom II 940 BE 3.0 Ghz just in case, that was made just for AM2+. I will also try running Vista era games also in Vista. That way we will see comparison of Crysis in dx9 vs dx10. I have AM3 Phenom II as well, but those are just for comparison. They should run in AM3.

I have better GPUs available for Phenoms. Phenoms can run 1066 memory natively. No more need for OC. Phenoms have faster HT.

In Far Cry 2 and Need for Speed: Undercover I do see 100% CPU utilization, so there is hope.

Testbench 7:
- Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3 v2.0
- Athlon 64 X2 6400+ ADX6400IAA6CZ (Windsor, released in 2007) with DDR2 running at 800
- Asus GeForce GTX 480 (factory clocks, 701 GPU, 924 memory, 1401 shader, released in 2010). NVidia driver 197.41

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1024x768, Athlon 64 X2 6400+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 45 fps
• Firefly Forest - 45 fps
• Canyon Flight - 98 fps
• Deep Freeze - 56 fps

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x900, Athlon 64 X2 6400+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 44 fps
• Firefly Forest - 45 fps
• Canyon Flight - 92 fps
• Deep Freeze - 56 fps

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x1200, Athlon 64 X2 6400+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 44 fps
• Firefly Forest - 44 fps
• Canyon Flight - 90 fps
• Deep Freeze - 55 fps

The gain is about 3-5 fps over standard Athlon 64 X2 6000+ with DDR 750.

Games tested:
- F.E.A.R. (2005) - in 1600x1200 with max settings we get 144 fps average, 59 fps minimum in built-in benchmark.
- World in Conflict (2007) - in 1600x1200 we then get 33 average fps in built-in benchmark with the best visual quality settings. 4 fps improvement over standard Athlon 64X2 6000+. Benchmark is quite extreme and real game works better. Playable.
- Crysis (2007) - in 1600x1200 average fps in GPU benchmark is 49 with 4x full screen anti aliasing. Everything else was set to max. Playable.

We didn't test Far Cry 2 and Need for Speed: Undercover as we already know from Testbench 6 that Windsor isn't going to cut it.

Conclusion about Athlon 64X2 6400+ (Windsor) with GeForce GTX 480 and DDR2 800:
- noticeable improvement in Crysis in average fps and game. We can state Crysis is in the playable range now.
- it is a good choice for Windows XP era games (2002-2006)
- mediocre coverage of Windows Vista era (2007-2009) due to slow CPU, noticeable in games from 2008
- we are unable to improve performance of Need for Speed: Undercover or Far Cry 2 to acceptable levels (inherited from Testbench 6)

Bonus Testbench 8:
- Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3 v2.0
- OCed Athlon 64 X2 6400+ ADX6400IAA6CZ to 3.3Ghz (Windsor, released in 2007) with DDR2 running at 943. Base frequency 254Mhz, 13.0 multiplier, CPU speed 3302Mhz with stock voltage, HT link 1270Mhz, DRAM frequency 471.7, DRAM divisor 7, DRAM timings 5 5 5 15, DRAM voltage 2.2V
- Asus GeForce GTX 480 (factory clocks, 701 GPU, 924 memory, 1401 shader, released in 2010). NVidia driver 197.41

Interestingly, attempt to use 13.5 multiplier and lower base frequency lead to performance regression even though memory timings were the same as was CPU clock and memory clock.

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1024x768, Athlon 64 X2 6400+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 47 fps
• Firefly Forest - 47 fps
• Canyon Flight - 102 fps
• Deep Freeze - 58 fps

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x1200, Athlon 64 X2 6400+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 45 fps
• Firefly Forest - 46 fps
• Canyon Flight - 93 fps
• Deep Freeze - 57 fps

Games tested:
- F.E.A.R. (2005) - in 1600x1200 with max settings we get 150 fps average in built-in benchmark.
- World in Conflict (2007) - in 1600x1200 we then get 35 average fps in built-in benchmark with the best visual quality settings. Benchmark is quite extreme and real game works better. Playable.
- Crysis (2007) - in 1600x1200 average fps in GPU benchmark is 52 with 4x full screen anti aliasing. Everything else was set to max. Playable.

Conclusion about OCed Athlon 64X2 6400+ (Windsor) to 3.3Ghz with GeForce GTX 480 and DDR2 943:
- this represents an attempt to squeeze more performance out of Windsor. It is faster than Testbench 6. It will be the fastest Windsor.
- it is a good choice for Windows XP era games (2002-2006)
- mediocre coverage of Windows Vista era (2007-2009) due to slow CPU, noticeable in games from 2008
- no instability was observed

Testbench 9:
- Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3 v2.0
- Athlon 64 X2 6000+ ADV6000IAA5DO (Brisbane, released in 2008) with DDR2 running at 778.
- Asus GeForce GTX 480 (factory clocks, 701 GPU, 924 memory, 1401 shader, released in 2010). NVidia driver 197.41

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1024x768, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 40 fps
• Firefly Forest - 41 fps
• Canyon Flight - 89 fps
• Deep Freeze - 51 fps

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x900, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 39 fps
• Firefly Forest - 40 fps
• Canyon Flight - 85 fps
• Deep Freeze - 51 fps

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x1200, Athlon 64 X2 6000+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 38 fps
• Firefly Forest - 40 fps
• Canyon Flight - 82 fps
• Deep Freeze - 50 fps

We see a performace regression of 2-4 fps over Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Windsor), while stock Brisbane has 100Mhz higher clock speed and memory is running faster as well.

Games tested:
- F.E.A.R. (2005) - in 1600x1200 with max settings we get 132 fps average in built-in benchmark.
- World in Conflict (2007) - in 1600x1200 we then get 30 average fps in built-in benchmark with the best visual quality settings. Benchmark is quite extreme and real game works better. Playable.
- Crysis (2007) - in 1600x1200 average fps in benchmark is 45 without full screen anti aliasing. Everything else was set to max. When 4x anti aliasing is enabled, we get 44 average fps. We get 5-6 fps less than stock Athlon 64X2 6000+ (Windsor).

Conclusion about Athlon 64X2 6000+ (Brisbane)
- inferior to Athlon 64X2 6000+ (Windsor) in performance
- lower TDP is not a good tradeoff given good silent coolers are available
- it is a good choice for Windows XP era games (2002-2006)
- mediocre coverage of Windows Vista era (2007-2009) due to slow CPU, noticeable in games from 2008
- if you have a choice, choose Windsor over Brisbane

Bonus Testbench 10:
- Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3 v2.0
- OCed Athlon 64 X2 6000+ ADV6000IAA5DO (Brisbane, released in 2008) to 3.2Ghz with DDR2 running at 916. Base frequency 247Mhz, 13.0 multiplier, CPU speed 3210Mhz with stock voltage, HT link 1235Mhz, DRAM frequency 458.7, DRAM divisor 7, DRAM timings 5 5 5 15, DRAM voltage 2.2V
- Asus GeForce GTX 480 (factory clocks, 701 GPU, 924 memory, 1401 shader, released in 2010). NVidia driver 197.41

Multiplier 13 worked great in Testbench 6 and Bonus Testbench 8. This testbench is identical to Testbench 6 in settings used for Windsor. We get clock by clock comparison of Windsor and Brisbane architecture.

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1024x768, Athlon 64 X2 6400+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 42 fps
• Firefly Forest - 43 fps
• Canyon Flight - 93 fps
• Deep Freeze - 53 fps

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x1200, Athlon 64 X2 6400+, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 41 fps
• Firefly Forest - 41 fps
• Canyon Flight - 85 fps
• Deep Freeze - 53 fps

At the same clock speed, memory speed, HT link, Brisbane lags behind Windsor by about 3-7 fps.

Games tested:
- F.E.A.R. (2005) - in 1600x1200 with max settings we get 134 fps average in built-in benchmark.
- World in Conflict (2007) - in 1600x1200 we then get 29 average fps in built-in benchmark with the best visual quality settings. Benchmark is quite extreme and real game works better. Very minor performance drop over stock CPU. Benchmark was repeated and findings confirmed. Playable.
- Crysis (2007) - in 1600x1200 average fps in benchmark is 48 without full screen anti aliasing. Everything else was set to max. When 4x anti aliasing is enabled, we get 46 average fps.

Conclusion about OCed Athlon 64 X2 6000+ ADV6000IAA5DO (Brisbane) to 3.2Ghz with GeForce GTX 480 and DDR2 916:
- this represents an attempt to squeeze more performance out of Brisbane. It will be the fastest Brisbane.
- it doesn't reliably beat stock Athlon 64 X2 6000+ ADX6000IAA6CZ (Windsor) and lags behind Windsor OCed to 3.2Ghz.
- it is a good choice for Windows XP era games (2002-2006)
- mediocre coverage of Windows Vista era (2007-2009) due to slow CPU, noticeable in games from 2008
- if you have a choice, choose Windsor over Brisbane
- no instability was observed

So easily ~10% lower performance. Not an insignificant downgrade, in fact easily within what improvements from generation to generation are nowadays.

That's fascinating. Must be annoying to buy a new computer which is slower than one from last year...

And a good reason to avoid brisbane altogether nowadays...

AMD 65nm process was a big flop. AMD originally probably expected clocks about 3.5Ghz or higher. Phenom I also had initially very low clocks and TLB bug. 2008 was an extremely bad year for AMD with the TLB bug and Brisbane. In 2009 AMD switched to 45nm process and never had the time to refine 65nm. 2008 was probably a turning point when many switched to Intel. I had Intel core 2 duo at that time.

Nowadays people should get Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Brisbane) only for historical value reasons as a curiosity, or if nothing else is available. Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (Windsor) is a clear winner for AM2, with Athlon 64 X2 6000+ being a stopgap solution until a cheap higher clocked brother is found. 6400+ conveniently runs memory at DDR2 800 speed so there is no need to mess with OC settings. Just run it at stock speed and it will last for a very long time. Mediocre for Windows Vista era, but it does allow to play Crysis. Buy them now as they may be too expensive in 5-10 years.

I was on AMD back then and i completely missed whole mess. I got earlier athlon x2 when vista was released, i do not remember exactly - something in 4000-5000+ range. 4400+ perhaps. This upgrade was long overdue since i was using athlonXP 2200+ still.

This CPUs were not bad back then, they were competitive enough in terms of price/performance and offered some benefits like support for more memory. That system had 8GB, since vista kind of wanted that...

Then a few years later i swapped it for phenom2. Those were fun and still competitive too, with overclocking more easily available (plenty of unlocked options), again - less issues with RAM, whole unlocking cores and L3 thing...

Intel's LGA775 has its own issues with memory controller still in chipset, whole bunch of chipsets and some weird limitations with use of single/dual rank sticks etc. E8600 system i currently have does not support more than 4GB of RAM for example. A couple AM2 boards i have support 8GB with no issues, being older...

For me the point where AMD became not competitive and outright bad, forcing me towards intel, was FX...

4GB is a quite low limit. Not really for Vista. Sometimes boards support 8GB but you cannot use that with the fastest memory. E8600 has 6MB shared L2 cache and supports DDR3 1066 which is quite low as well. Windsor not having a shared L3 cache must be hurting it. It's essentially a competition between 45nm and 90nm and having to share data through main memory.

The motherboard I used Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3 v2.0 had no trouble running 4x 2GB at DDR2 1000 speed with Windsor. Gigabyte claims it supports 16GB but 4GB modules are not sold.

Testbench 11:
- Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3 v2.0
- Phenom X4 9950 BE 2.6Ghz HD995ZXAJ4BGH (Agena, stepping B3, released in 2008)
- Asus GeForce GTX 480 (factory clocks, 701 GPU, 924 memory, 1401 shader, released in 2010). NVidia driver 197.41
- 4x 2GB DDR2 800 unganged running at 5 4 4 12

With Phenom, instead of selecting memory speed, we have the option to select DDR multiplier in BIOS.

4x 2GB DDR2 at 1066 was not stable at SPD settings and Windows XP would crash at boot immediately. 4x 2GB DDR2 1000 was stable with Windsor before, but we never tried 1066. When two memory sticks are present, DDR2 1066 is selected automatically. With 4 sticks DDR2 800 is selected. Two sticks were still not completely stable at autodetected timings. I didn't want to spend more time on this so I just used the same settings I used for Windsor, except we use unganged memory controllers. We want to install Vista/Windows 7 as well and having 8GB RAM is useful. It may be possible to reach higher stable memory clocks by raising the base clock and reducing multiplier, same way we did it with Windsor.

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1024x768, Phenom X4 9950 BE 2.6Ghz, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 40 fps
• Firefly Forest - 40 fps
• Canyon Flight - 90 fps
• Deep Freeze - 50 fps

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x900, Phenom X4 9950 BE 2.6Ghz, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 38 fps
• Firefly Forest - 39 fps
• Canyon Flight - 86 fps
• Deep Freeze - 49 fps

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x1200, Phenom X4 9950 BE 2.6Ghz, GeForce GTX 480:

• Return To Proxycon - 38 fps
• Firefly Forest - 39 fps
• Canyon Flight - 83 fps
• Deep Freeze - 49 fps

Results are about in line with Athlon 64X2 6000+ (Brisbane).

Games tested:
Windows XP
- F.E.A.R. (2005) - in 1600x1200 with max settings we get 129 fps average in built-in benchmark, which is 15fps less than Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (Windsor). The number is still high enough not to cause concern.
- Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare (2007) - in 1600x1200 we get 180-330 fps (195 when aiming at tower with scope). 40-80 fps more than Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Windsor). This game can take advantage of 4 cores and significantly outperforms Windsor.
- World in Conflict (2007) - in 1600x1200 we then get 34 average fps in built-in benchmark with the best visual quality settings. Benchmark is quite extreme and real game works better. 1 fps more than Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (Windsor) which is within error tolerance.
- Crysis (2007) - in 1600x1200 average fps in benchmark is 45 without full screen anti aliasing. Everything else was set to max. When 4x anti aliasing is enabled, we get 46 average fps. 3 fps less than Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (Windsor).
- STALKER (2007) - in 1600x1200, first mission outside we get about 50-120 fps. No improvement over Windsor.
- Far Cry 2 (2008) - with max settings, in 1600x1200 we get about 35-45 fps in the initial jeep ride with 40 fps most of the time. 45 fps in the built-in "Demo Ranch" benchmark and 31 fps in the "Action Scene" benchmark. Not enough for enjoyable experience. This game cannot take advantage of more than 2 cores.
- Need for Speed: Undercover (2008) - in 1600x1200 we get 35-45 fps in the city at the main menu. 50% cpu utilization and lowering resolution does not help. Not enough for enjoyable experience. This game cannot take advantage of more than 2 cores.
- Colin McRae: Dirt 2 (2009) - with ultra settings, in 1600x1200 we get 74 average fps in the built-in benchmark
- Need for Speed: Shift (2009) - 1600x1200 we get 55-65 fps during race from inside car. No improvement over Windsor.
- Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. 2 (2010) - with max settings, anti aliasing set to 4x, in 1600x1200 we get 102 average fps in the built-in benchmark
Windows 7
- Crysis (2007) - in dx10 mode in 1600x1200 we get 41 average fps with very high quality and 4x anti aliasing in built-in benchmark. In dx9 mode with high details and 4x anti aliasing we get 44 fps, 1 fps less than in Windows XP.
- Grand Theft Auto IV (2008) - in 1600x1200 we get 50 average fps in the built-in benchmark with very high quality, view distance 50, detail distance 60, vehicle density 51 (double values from defaults). After starting game and driving around home it is 20-30 fps, not enough for enjoyable experience.
- Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II (2009) - with ultra settings, in 1600x1200 we get 38 average fps in the built-in benchmark
- Metro 2033 (2010) - in 1600x1200 we get average 14 fps with very high quality except for SSAA and Physics (caused crashes). Lot of graphical glitches (disappearing objects), most likely due to old driver 197.41
- Mafia II (2010) - in 1600x1200 we get average 9 fps with max settings including antialiasing and 16x anisotropic filtering
- Batman: Arkham City (2011) - in 1600x1200 we get average 59 fps with very high quality and FXAA high anti-aliasing. Physics was off as it could not be enabled with the old driver 197.41.

Conclusion about Phenom X4 9950 BE 2.6Ghz with GeForce GTX 480 and DDR2 800:
- low clocks, should be compared to Athlon 64X2 6000+ (Brisbane) performance wise in games. Does not equal Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Windsor). Widsor has 1MB L2 cache, Phenom has 512KB just like Brisbane but we get L3 cache.
- very few titles take advantage of more than 2 cores, one of them is Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare. We didn't solve low performance in Crysis, Far Cry 2 or Need for Speed: Undercover.
- we get 4 moderately fast cores that should improve productivity workloads
- it is a good choice for Windows XP era games (2002-2006)
- mediocre coverage of Windows Vista era (2007-2009) due to slow CPU, noticeable in games from 2008
- AMD failed to deliver improved gaming experience in 2008. There exists Athlon X2 7750 BE released in 2008, but it's just 100Mhz faster, therefore difference will be negligible and it isn't worth getting.
- Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (Windsor) is still the overall winner

Next steps:
- test Athlon X2 7850 BE 2.8Ghz (Kuma, stepping B3, released in 2009)
- it is supposed to be Phenom based, with 2 software locked cores. I wonder if BIOS will be able to unlock them. It is the fastest clocked Phenom X2 released. They are supposed to have L3 cache that we missed in Windsor and Brisbane.
- it is expected to be very close to Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (Windsor)
- further testing is on-hold until I receive this CPU
- the most powerful authentic AM2+ CPU available is Phenom II X4 940 BE 3Ghz which will be tested as well. It is an AM2+ specific CPU and doesn't work in AM3. It is expected to be the overall winner. I do not consider true AM3 CPUs in AM2+ as authentic, they belong to AM3 boards.

Edit1: added more game benchmark results
Edit2: added Windows 7 game benchmark results

That went about as well as i expected. Not only is it no longer AM2, but AM2+, but also fails to be an improvement. Yes, architectural improvements, L3 cache, etc play their role which is evident by ~similar performance at lower clock rate, but also said lower clock rate negates any benefits. And 4 cores are useless. They really needed to make higher frequency dual core one like intel did...

AlexZ wrote on 2025-07-06, 20:57:

- the most powerful authentic AM2+ CPU available is Phenom II X4 940 BE 3Ghz which will be tested as well. It is an AM2+ specific CPU and doesn't work in AM3. It is expected to be the overall winner. I do not consider true AM3 CPUs in AM2+ as authentic, they belong to AM3 boards.

This seems a little strange to me. Said CPU is based on deneb core, the same as all Phenom2 CPUs apart from 6 core ones (smaller core count ones technically were called differently, but basically were just defective deneb dies with cores or L3 disabled). What's the difference between any other phenom2? The fact it has been packaged differently?

I'd say anything that can run in AM2+ is "authentic". It is not AM2 though, that's different.

But anyway it should perform the same as any phenom2 at the same frequency, and since it is BE... And yeah, there will be an improvement here.

Since we are talking about AM2+/AM3 now ran 3dmark06 a few times on my system, just for comparison:

No crysis this time because this is on win7 x64 and would not be comparable...

And this is AM2+ with DDR2:

Fun fact: it is still slower than E8600...

Archer57 wrote on 2025-07-07, 00:29:

That went about as well as i expected. Not only is it no longer AM2, but AM2+, but also fails to be an improvement. Yes, architectural improvements, L3 cache, etc play their role which is evident by ~similar performance at lower clock rate, but also said lower clock rate negates any benefits. And 4 cores are useless. They really needed to make higher frequency dual core one like intel did...

4 cores will be useful later, in Windows 7 era with DirectX 11 but 2.6Ghz clock is probably too low for those games. I will add a few more 2008/2009/2010 era games into the original post. I will not be testing the next CPU for about 3 weeks, but can test other games and effect of Windows Vista vs Windows 7 on games. Faster OS will win. Also I need to be able to do TRIM somehow so that also matters.

Archer57 wrote on 2025-07-07, 00:29:

This seems a little strange to me. Said CPU is based on deneb core, the same as all Phenom2 CPUs apart from 6 core ones (smaller core count ones technically were called differently, but basically were just defective deneb dies with cores or L3 disabled). What's the difference between any other phenom2? The fact it has been packaged differently?

I'd say anything that can run in AM2+ is "authentic". It is not AM2 though, that's different.

It's mostly about package and optimal platform for those CPUs. Phenom II X4 940 BE has no choice of other sockets. AM3 Phenom II will be better served in an AM3 board where it was originally intended. I do have Gigabyte GA-870A-UD3 v2.1 which is an AM3 board that doesn't support Visheras so it's perfect for Phenom II. We could look into the benefits of using DDR2 800 vs DDR3 1600 on games.

Phenom II X4 940 BE should be able to beat Athlon 64X2 6400+ (Windsor) and land below your Phenom II X4 3.2Ghz.

What we learned is that AMD CPUs became obsolete next year, if they were not already obsolete on release date. Intel had some headroom.

To be fair that E8600 is also using DDR2: https://valid.x86.fr/t7ev18

So comparison between it and phenom2 with DDR2 seems appropriate. IIRC on LGA775 there is a difference between DDR2 and DDR3, but it is very small.

And yeah, i think that if there is any lesson to learn from this era of CPUs it would be: more cores does not equal better and they will not become useful in the future. Because in the future the CPU will be too slow for it to matter anyway.

This was a huge argument AMD fans who were fans enough to stick with FX used - "just wait, in a few years our CPUs will still be fine while your i7-2600 will be hopelessly outdated"... well, now we know how that went...

Both C2Q and phenom/phenom2/athlon2 suffered from this - neither were ever very useful outside of specialized tasks.

All that said - we are comparing from "the best" point of view with overpowered GPUs, as someone who used this CPUs back in the day - they did not feel instantly outdated or useless, they were perfectly adequate at the time. Both athlon64 x2 and phenom2.

Comparison with my Phenom II X6 1100T. It will be upgraded to FX-8370 (4.3Ghz base clocked Vishera) soon as Phenom II X6 is too underpowered for GTX 980 Ti. I already have the CPU working in another board.

- Asus Sabertooth 990FX R2.0
- Phenom II X6 9950 1100T, 3.3Ghz (Thuban, released in 2010)
- Asus GeForce GTX 980 Ti. NVidia driver 436.15
- 4x 8GB DDR3 1600 unganged running at 11 11 11 28 39 2T

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1024x768:

• Return To Proxycon - 57 fps
• Firefly Forest - 59 fps
• Canyon Flight - 131 fps
• Deep Freeze - 75 fps

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x900:

• Return To Proxycon - 58 fps
• Firefly Forest - 62 fps
• Canyon Flight - 132 fps
• Deep Freeze - 75 fps

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1920x1080:

• Return To Proxycon - 58 fps
• Firefly Forest - 62 fps
• Canyon Flight - 132 fps
• Deep Freeze - 74 fps

Games tested:
Windows 7
- Crysis (2007) - in 1920x1080 in dx9 mode, high details and no anti aliasing, average fps in benchmark is 53. With 4x anti aliasing, average fps in benchmark is 51. In dx10 mode, very high details, 4x anti aliasing, average fps in benchmark is 44. Not great.

None of Phenom II really belong to AM2 discussion. Vanilla AM2 ended on pretty decent but hot Athlon 64 6400+ and various Brisbane 65nm flops. A lot of boards from AM2 era, especially high end ones, lack support for AM2+/AM3 CPUs too. Then it was followed by mostly disappointing Phenom, of which only last 9950 kinda works and is capable to trade blows with C2Q 6600/6700.

Yeah, with that board and CPU it is a lot newer, like 4 years newer than windsor, basically a competitor to LGA1156-LGA1155. I mean i7-2600 was released in Q1 2011...

Thuban in general was... kind of pointless. Yeah, more cores, still not useful at that point. But when it was released whole platform had been outdated and outclassed for a few year already...

And it just manages to catch up with E8600 with its older platform, chipset and DDR2-800 in 3Dmark, but crysis is still noticeably slower...

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2025-07-13, 23:56:

None of Phenom II really belong to AM2 discussion. Vanilla AM2 ended on pretty decent but hot Athlon 64 6400+ and various Brisbane 65nm flops. A lot of boards from AM2 era, especially high end ones, lack support for AM2+/AM3 CPUs too. Then it was followed by mostly disappointing Phenom, of which only last 9950 kinda works and is capable to trade blows with C2Q 6600/6700.

The Phenom II X6 illustrates that only a much later AMD CPU manages to kind of catch up with E8600 so that people do not have high hopes such as OCing Windsor to match it. The results should be consistent with Phenom II X4 3.2/3.4 Ghz as the extra cores are not useful for games. This CPU will be replaced by Vishera in my board which is why I ran a few last benchmarks on it.

The original Phenom X4 9950 BE is included in my tests few posts above but it isn't a great gaming platform. It was a general productivity platform that can handle games if needed. The culprit is AMD 65nm process which lead to a major clock reduction unlike Intel's new processes. AMD moved quickly to 45nm and never refined 65nm. Phenom I badly needed 3Ghz clock.

AM2 CPUs have been extensively tested in this topic and the clear winner is 6400+ Windsor. Alternatively, one should get 6000+ Windsor if a cheap 6400+ is not available. It was demonstrated this CPU cannot handle Windows Vista era well and some graphics quality compromises will have to be made to reduce CPU load. If the expectations are right, it works well.

I chose Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3 v2.0 as AM2+ testing platform specifically because it is a late board with basically AM3 chipset and 4 pin CPU connector, yet it is a cheap and abundant board. It supports Phenom II X6 1100T and Phenom II X4 980 if needed.

On games being noticably slower on AMD, I wouldn't be surprised if there were Intel specific optimizations in Nvidia drivers. GeForce GTX 480 and newer have a major performance problem with Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2 on AMD CPUs but not Intel CPUs. We are dealing with multiple times difference.

Phenom II isn't any revolutionary change, from what I read it is just new process and larger L3 cache. I personally prefer to put it into AM3 (DDR3, SATA 6Gbps, USB 3) rather than AM2+ as it will perform better in the former, as designed. The only exception is Phenom II X4 940 BE as that is an AM2+ only CPU and it has nowhere else to go. An interesting choice is also Athlon X2 7850 BE (Phenom based), kind of Brisbane with L3 cache. Brisbane looks like an unfinished product. These two CPUs will be tested. My expectations is I will keep Phenom II X4 940 BE in my AM2+ board.

Archer57 wrote on 2025-07-07, 04:41:

No crysis this time because this is on win7 x64 and would not be comparable...

You can run Crysis benchmark in dx9 mode by adding -dx9 command line argument in the GPU bat file. I run the 32bit version in dx9 mode to make it more comparable to Windows XP. The results are slightly lower, but only by about 1 fps. Windows XP is the best platform for dx9 games.

Testbench 12:
- Gigabyte GA-MA770-UD3 v2.0
- Athlon X2 7750 BE 2.7Ghz AD775ZWCJ2BGH (Kuma, stepping B3, released in 2008)
- Asus GeForce GTX 480 (factory clocks, 701 GPU, 924 memory, 1401 shader, released in 2010). NVidia driver 197.41
- 4x 2GB DDR2 800 unganged running at 4 4 4 12

With Phenom, instead of selecting memory speed, we have the option to select DDR multiplier in BIOS. BIOS is not able to unlock the 2 extra cores via Advanced Clock Calibration setting.

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1024x768:

• Return To Proxycon - 41 fps
• Firefly Forest - 43 fps
• Canyon Flight - 95 fps
• Deep Freeze - 52 fps

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x900:

• Return To Proxycon - 40 fps
• Firefly Forest - 42 fps
• Canyon Flight - 90 fps
• Deep Freeze - 52 fps

3d mark 2006 breakdown, 1600x1200:

• Return To Proxycon - 40 fps
• Firefly Forest - 41 fps
• Canyon Flight - 86 fps
• Deep Freeze - 52 fps

Very similar results to Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Windsor).

Games tested:
Windows XP
- F.E.A.R. (2005) - in 1600x1200 with max settings we get 138 fps average in built-in benchmark, which is same as Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Windsor).
- Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare (2007) - in 1600x1200 we get 140-260 fps (180 when aiming at tower with scope). About the same as Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Windsor).
- World in Conflict (2007) - in 1600x1200 we then get 28 average fps in built-in benchmark with the best visual quality settings, which is same as Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Windsor). Phenom X4 9950 BE 2.6Ghz got 6 more fps.
- Crysis (2007) - in 1600x1200 average fps in benchmark is 43 without full screen anti aliasing. Everything else was set to max. When 4x anti aliasing is enabled, we get 43 average fps.
- Far Cry 2 (2008) - with max settings, in 1600x1200 we get 42 fps in the built-in "Demo Ranch" benchmark and 24 fps in the "Action Scene" benchmark. Not enough for enjoyable experience. Phenom X4 9950 BE 2.6Ghz got 3-7 fps more.
- Colin McRae: Dirt 2 (2009) - with ultra settings, in 1600x1200 we get 59 average fps in the built-in benchmark. Phenom X4 9950 BE 2.6Ghz got 15 fps more.
Windows 7
- Crysis (2007) - in dx10 mode in 1600x1200 we get 30 average fps with very high quality and 4x anti aliasing in built-in benchmark. In dx9 mode with high details and 4x anti aliasing we get 44 fps. In dx10 mode with high details and 4x anti aliasing we get 39 fps. For some reason we got much worse dx10 performance in very high quality than Phenom X4 9950 BE 2.6Ghz.
- Grand Theft Auto IV (2008) - in 1600x1200 we get 33 average fps in the built-in benchmark with very high quality, view distance 50, detail distance 60, vehicle density 51 (double values from defaults). After starting game and driving around home it is 17-25 fps, not enough for enjoyable experience. Phenom X4 9950 BE 2.6Ghz got 17 fps more in the built-in benchmark and about 5 fps more in game.
- Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II (2009) - with ultra settings, in 1600x1200 we get 36 average fps in the built-in benchmark. Phenom X4 9950 BE 2.6Ghz got 2 more fps.
- Batman: Arkham City (2011) - in 1600x1200 we get average 40 fps with very high quality and FXAA high anti-aliasing. Physics was off as it could not be enabled with the old driver 197.41. Phenom X4 9950 BE 2.6Ghz got 19 more fps.

Conclusion about Athlon X2 7750 BE 2.7Ghz with GeForce GTX 480 and DDR2 800:
- should be compared to Athlon 64X2 6000+ (Windsor) performance wise in Windows XP games. It does not match Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Windsor) in Crysis, but seems to do it in other games and 3d mark.
- it is a good choice for Windows XP era games (2002-2006)
- mediocre coverage of Windows Vista era (2007-2009) due to slow CPU, noticeable in games from 2008.
- noticably slower than Phenom X4 9950 BE 2.6Ghz in Windows Vista games such as GTA 4, Far Cry 2, Colin McRae: Dirt 2. We really need 4 AMD cores for later games.

In hindsight, Phenom X4 9950 BE 2.6Ghz is a decent choice from tested CPUs to cover both Windows XP and Windows Vista era

Next steps:
- test Athlon X2 7850 BE 2.8Ghz. It is expected to be between Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (Windsor) and Athlon 64 X2 6400+ (Windsor) performance wise.