Kuma (dual core Phenom) benches

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
From expreview, so it's not exactly a solid article...:roll:

Article

Conclusion:

"From our test result, you can see lots of improvements have been done compare to Brisbane core. Take benchmark tool PCMark Vantage as an example, we?ve experienced about 8% in total score increase. You can see more improvement in real game and video transcode software: a same MPG video clip transcode, Kuma only used 1min 37sec, but Brisbane need 2min 26sec to finish the job, very impressive.

In other words, Kuma is more better than other AMD dual core, not only the basic performance, the overclocking and memory ratio adjustment are also proved that the CPU is AMD?s advancement in dual core arena.

Power consumption is one of con of Kuma. We don?t know if Kuma is a Agena with two cores disabled, but it really feels like. In default clock Athlon 6500 is 300MHz lower than Athlon64 X2 5000+, but power consumption is 20W higher no matter idle or active"
 

error8

Diamond Member
Nov 28, 2007
3,204
0
76
They took the Phenom X4, disabled one core and there we have the X3s. Now, they've disabled one core more and we get the Kuma X2. It's clear that Agena core has more clocks per cycle over the old Brisbane, but the clocks are still very low. And because of that power consumption, AMD is not able to deliver higher frequencies, yet . I just don't understand why it has to have 95W TDP at 2.3 ghz. It seems monstrous for 65 nm fabrication process. It's like AMD goes back to the 90nm age, in terms of power consumption.
But it overclocks well and that seems to be the best thing with this cpu. It would be nice to see how it performs, side by side with the dual cores Penryns.
 

Roy2001

Senior member
Jun 21, 2001
535
0
76
The review did not compare it to a Conroe or Penyn CPU. It did not post power usage at normal clock or OCed. It must be very ugly.

I don't think it can compete with Intel dual core CPU. I guess it will never see the day except certain OEM market.
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
It's pretty sad for AMD that it's newsworthy that a new processor core is faster than the previous generation.