The only area we found that the 9350e was beneficial was for a home theatre PC, and even then in just a single instance after using the right codec. The CoreAVC codec is highly threaded and so takes advantage of the extra resources available on the 9350e, compared to the faster clocked dual-core 4850e, which was unable to handle a 1080p MKV all on its own. However, if it's possible, moving some of the load onto the GPU is still yet again more attractive and more energy efficient.
With Media Player Classic - Home Cinema edition set to use the GPU, the 4850e was decidedly overpowered now. We realise not everything can be offloaded onto the GPU - it has to conform to some sort of standard at least. The Phenom X4 9350e is stuck between a rock and a hard place in that respect. The Phenoms need clock speed to get competitive with what else is on offer, but in this instance, AMD has gone the other way and underclocked the 9350e instead. What's also stopping you from just underclocking and undervolting any other Phenom like the 9550?
AMD claims the 9350e is "perfect for the Home Theatre PC, small form factor PCs and anywhere companies or consumers want a multi-tasking machine that is energy efficient and inexpensive", but exactly how good is it? Does a higher clocked 65W or 45W dual-core offer a better performance than four cores that are clocked lower? From our experience with the Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 (and lower), we found that a faster dual-core is often more beneficial - especially in gaming.
US Price (as reviewed): Around $220 (ex. Tax)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment