Viewing page 4 of 6 pages.
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Performance
|
Benchmark Comparison
|
|
Test
|
E7200
|
X2 250
|
X2 550
|
X3 720
|
|
NOD32
|
2:47
|
3:35
|
2:34
|
2:47
|
|
WinRAR
|
3:34
|
4:03
|
3:09
|
3:16
|
|
iTunes
|
4:00
|
5:36
|
4:44
|
5:13
|
|
TMPGEnc
|
6:10
|
5:11
|
4:54
|
5:08
|
|
PCMark2005
|
7057
|
6545
|
7217
|
7057
|
The Phenom II chip was between 5% and 28% faster in our tests (average of 16%)
compared to the Athlon II. As the X2 550 is clocked only 100 MHz higher, the
6MB of L3 cache is likely what gave it such a sizable performance advantage.
The E7200 beat the X2 250 in all tests except video encoding using TMPGEnc
— it was on average 10% faster. Compared to the X2 550, it is marginally slower,
about 5% on average. The higher clocked E5300 or E7300 would be a closer match
for the Phenom II chip.
|
Average Benchmark Power Consumption
|
|
Test
|
E7200
|
X2 250
|
X2 550
|
X3 720
|
|
UV*
|
Stock
|
UV**
|
Stock
|
|
NOD32
|
70W
|
85W
|
88W
|
106W
|
112W
|
|
WinRAR
|
74W
|
87W
|
93W
|
105W
|
111W
|
|
iTunes
|
72W
|
90W
|
98W
|
108W
|
118W
|
|
TMPGEnc
|
79W
|
99W
|
115W
|
117W
|
118W
|
130W
|
|
*Athlon II X2 250 undervolted from 1.325V to 1.175V.
**Phenom II X2 550 undervolted from 1.275V to 1.1875V.
|
As expected, the average power consumption for both the new AMD chips during
our timed tests was much higher than the E7200. The X2 250 used 13-20W more,
while the X2 550 used 31-39W more. Undervolting helped the X2 250 bridge the
gap somewhat, but the X2 550's power figures wouldn't budge.
|
Benchmark Power Consumption (Watt-hours)
|
|
Test
|
E7200
|
X2 250
|
X2 550
|
X3 720
|
|
UV*
|
Stock
|
Stock
|
|
NOD32
|
3.25
|
5.08
|
5.26
|
4.53
|
5.02
|
|
WinRAR
|
4.40
|
5.87
|
6.28
|
5.51
|
6.04
|
|
iTunes
|
4.80
|
8.40
|
9.15
|
8.52
|
10.26
|
|
TMPGEnc
|
8.12
|
8.55
|
9.93
|
9.64
|
11.12
|
|
*Athlon II X2 250 undervolted from 1.325V to 1.175V.
|
When it comes to absolute energy efficiency (i.e. the average AC power used
by the system multiplied by the time it took to run each test), the E7200 came
out on top once again. Between the two AMD chips, the Phenom II was slightly
more efficient — it completed the benchmarks fast enough to offset its
higher power consumption. The difference between the two was virtually nil once
we undervolted the Athlon II.
| Help support this site, buy from one of our affiliate retailers! |
|
