AMD Phenom X4 9350e - 65W quad-core

July 24, 2008 | 09:06

Tags: #overclocking

Companies: #amd

Paint.NET x64

Website: Paint.NET

This is the 64-bit version of the popular free image editing software, Paint.NET. It's not as advanced as something like Adobe Photoshop CS3 or Corel Paint Shop Pro Photo X2, but it does serve well for most image editing tasks.

We used the PDNBench script to test the processing times for a range of images and filters. The multi-threaded software also takes advantage of multi-core processors quite effectively.

For more information on what the benchmark script entails, please see this thread on the Paint.NET forums.





Paint.NET x64 3.20

PDNBench

  • Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1,066MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1,066MHz FSB)
  • Phenom X4 9850 (4x2.5GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
  • Phenom X4 9750 (4x2.4GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Phenom X4 9600 (4x2.3GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Phenom X4 9550 (4x2.2GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Phenom X4 9500 (4x2.2GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E8500 (2x3.16GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Phenom X4 9350e (4x2.0GHz 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Phenom X4 9350e (4x2.0GHz, 1.8GHz HTT, CnQ Enabled)
  • Core 2 Duo E8400 (2x3.0GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.0GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Phenom X3 8750 (3x2.4GHz 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E8200 (2x2.66GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.66GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Athlon X2 6400+ (2x3.2GHz, 1.0GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E6550 (2x2.33GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Athlon X2 6000+ (2x3.0GHz, 1.0GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E4500 (2x2.20GHz, 800MHz FSB)
  • 25.1
  • 29.1
  • 32.4
  • 33.4
  • 34.8
  • 36.9
  • 36.9
  • 37.8
  • 39.8
  • 40.2
  • 40.3
  • 42.8
  • 43.4
  • 45.3
  • 49.1
  • 52.0
  • 53.6
  • 55.2
  • 57.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Time in Seconds (lower is better)

Paint.NET is highly threaded and so the 9350e fits exactly where we'd expect - right above the dual-cores and triple-core, but below every other quad-core we've tested. There is an exception to the rule though - the Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 at 3.16GHz still outperforms it. For a change we see CnQ not making much of a difference as the rendering time drops less than half a second.

File Compression & Encryption:

Website: WinRAR

Our file compression tests were split into two halves to cover a broad spectrum of performance. The first test we ran was to compress and encrypt the MPEG-2 source file from our video encoding test with the highest quality compression ratio. Secondly, we compressed and encrypted the folder of 400 photographs used in our Photoshop Elements test with the same compression settings.

Large File Compression & Encryption

WinRAR 3.71, Multithreaded, 276MB source file

  • Core 2 Duo E8500 (2x3.16GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E8400 (2x3.0GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1,066MHz FSB)
  • Phenom X4 9850 (4x2.5GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
  • Phenom X4 9750 (4x2.4GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1,066MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E8200 (2x2.66GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Phenom X4 9550 (4x2.2GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.0GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Phenom X4 9600 (4x2.3GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Phenom X3 8750 (3x2.4GHz 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Athlon X2 6400+ (2x3.2GHz, 1.0GHz HTT)
  • Phenom X4 9500 (4x2.2GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.66GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Phenom X4 9350e (4x2.0GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Athlon X2 6000+ (2x3.0GHz, 1.0GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E6550 (2x2.33GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Phenom X4 9350e (4x2.0GHz, 1.8GHz HTT, CnQ Enabled)
  • Core 2 Duo E4500 (2x2.20GHz, 800MHz FSB)
  • 117.6
  • 123.3
  • 127.7
  • 128.3
  • 129.3
  • 132.6
  • 134.0
  • 138.3
  • 139.3
  • 139.6
  • 139.7
  • 140.3
  • 146.0
  • 146.3
  • 147.7
  • 152.0
  • 154.3
  • 155.7
  • 178.6
0
50
100
150
200
Time in Seconds (lower is better)

Small File Compression & Encryption

WinRAR 3.71, Multithreaded, 400 2048x1536 Photos

  • Core 2 Duo E8500 (2x3.16GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E8400 (2x3.0GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6700 (4x2.67GHz, 1,066MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E8200 (2x2.66GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E6850 (2x3.0GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Phenom X4 9850 (4x2.5GHz, 2.0GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Quad Q6600 (4x2.40GHz, 1,066MHz FSB)
  • Core 2 Duo E6750 (2x2.66GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Phenom X4 9750 (4x2.4GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Phenom X3 8750 (3x2.4GHz 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Athlon X2 6400+ (2x3.2GHz, 1.0GHz HTT)
  • Phenom X4 9550 (4x2.2GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E6550 (2x2.33GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
  • Phenom X4 9600 (4x2.3GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Phenom X4 9500 (4x2.2GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Athlon X2 6000+ (2x3.0GHz, 1.0GHz HTT)
  • Phenom X4 9350e (4x2.0GHz, 1.8GHz HTT)
  • Core 2 Duo E4500 (2x2.20GHz, 800MHz FSB)
  • Phenom X4 9350e (4x2.0GHz, 1.8GHz HTT, CnQ Enabled)
  • 103.3
  • 105.6
  • 113.7
  • 115.0
  • 117.6
  • 123.0
  • 124.3
  • 127.0
  • 130.3
  • 132.3
  • 133.0
  • 136.0
  • 136.6
  • 137.0
  • 141.0
  • 143.0
  • 146.7
  • 157.3
  • 166.3
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
Time in Seconds (lower is better)

In file compression we again see the complete lack of clock speed not helping the 9350e in this test. CnQ also kills the performance - making a bigger hit than there is time difference between most of the table, especially in small file compression where we expect the cores to be constantly flicking from high to low clock speeds as the data is compressed, written to hard drive, then the next file is accessed ready for the process to be repeated. In comparison, a single large file will constantly load the CPU and keep the clock speed at its elevated value.
Discuss this in the forums
YouTube logo
MSI MPG Velox 100R Chassis Review

October 14 2021 | 15:04