My own complete review of Phenom 9500

[Sparky]

Perhaps something is just inconsistent? OBR didn't get his chip to the same speeds as others either so maybe the gigabyte board doesn't play nice or something right now?

[OBR]

Sorry, but I can´t believe this. I did a full Phenom-Review for a german hardware-magazin and I got way better results:



Phenom @ 2,4 GHz is way faster than QX6850.

Full review: Phenom 9500 @ Planet 3DNow! (german)

Final score depends on lot of stuff indeed (RAM settings, mobo, packed files, cached files, hard disk speed)..., in many tests is Phenom in WinRAR slower then Intel, and you have faster ...that is strange ...
You did worst test ever ... professionals dont measure performance in built-in "WinRAR kBytes benchmark" bacause this test dont say anything about real performance, i tested in seconds ... time is better to compare, then stupid KBytes/s ...

PS. AMD OverDrive works perfectly form me. Everything i changed there, was relly changed in system ... but OC was the same like thru BIOS ...
Now i am waiting for MSI RD-790X and Asus RD-790FX mobos, will be delivered next week. I will test my Phenom on that mobos, and we will see how can overclock this chip on another mobo then strange Gigabyte ...

[nemrod]

ANY review thats show Phenom losing to c2q is in a winrar benchmark, clock for clock, is either fake or done by something who doesn't know what they are doing, so nice try obr, thx for nothing.

We are waiting your reviews done by somebody who do know what he is doing...

It 's fantastic, all the press show phenom isn't as good as we like, now, some have cpus on XS, that you could buy doublezero, that show the same but this is fake....

[kl0012]

Sorry, but I can´t believe this.

As I know, Winrar's speed depends on archive contest. For some files you will need more cpu power, for other files you will need more memory bandwidth. So, you can use internal benchmark which mostly tests memory speed or you can use your own set of files.

[OBR]

We are waiting your reviews done by somebody who do know what he is doing...

It 's fantastic, all the press show phenom isn't as good as we like, now, some have cpus on XS, that you could buy doublezero, that show the same but this is fake....

No, my explanation is above ...

In WinRar are very important : memory speed + timings, pre cached or not pre cached files (try do the same winrar test twice in sequence, you will see massive difference), very important are sort of packed files ... (video, mp3 or pictures and programs) ... every this depends on score in built-in benchmark, OK in this benchmark is Phenom better, but in real usage is slower (in seconds) ...

[DoubleZero]

No, my explanation is above ...

In WinRar are very important : memory speed + timings, pre cached or not pre cached files (try do the same winrar test twice in sequence, you will see massive difference), very important are sort of packed files ... (video, mp3 or pictures and programs) ... every this depends on score in built-in benchmark, OK in this benchmark is Phenom better, but in real usage is slower (in seconds) ...

You have a point there... it's just that every credible review that i saw had phenom being faster then C2Q in winrar, it's one of the few benchmarks where K10 wins in desktop.

So my apologies for pointing the finger so quicky

[kazgirl]

Hmmm....

Well while these kind of pics and reports are great and all for review articles.

For forums use, I for one would much prefer to see some user results with actual screenshots.... as opposed to pre-compiled graphs and data.....

Lets see some actual screenshots..... thats what I'd prefer to see.... something where you can actaully follow the steps taken by a user during the OC process....

These kind of results are similar to what we see pre-launch, I'm far more interested in seeing what users are able to achieve, with the screenshots and details of whats been tried, to see where problem areas are, or what should be avoided.

Theres no doubt in my mind at the moment that the majority of issues lie, with poor mobo support, and hopefully this will sort itself out in time as mobo manufacturers work out the glitches.....!!

[MusicIsMyLife]

As I know, Winrar's speed depends on archive contest. For some files you will need more cpu power, for other files you will need more memory bandwidth. So, you can use internal benchmark which mostly tests memory speed or you can use your own set of files.

In WinRar are very important : memory speed + timings, pre cached or not pre cached files (try do the same winrar test twice in sequence, you will see massive difference), very important are sort of packed files ... (video, mp3 or pictures and programs) ... every this depends on score in built-in benchmark, OK in this benchmark is Phenom better, but in real usage is slower (in seconds) ...

Please, explain this:

For every plattform I install a fresh version of windows xp. I use the same skins, same drivers (only mb-drivers may differ), same settings, same pagefile-size. Before I bench winrar, I reboot the system (not only winrar, for every single benchmark). I open winrar, open the same archive every time (and when I say same archive there should be a high chance to see the same files in archive ) and than I run the benchmark once. When I wan´t to do the benchmark for a 2nd time, I reboot my pc.

Why should there be a difference?

You did worst test ever ... professionals dont measure performance in built-in "WinRAR kBytes benchmark" ...

Thank you for these kind words.

[xVeinx]

Thank you OBR for your efforts and work ! As to the whole Winrar benching, I have a solution: do both methods. If ppl care about one over the other, great. Can it seriously hurt to have too much info?

Can't we all just get along?

[informal]

I'm with MusicIsMyLife on this.No way that C2Q is better in Winrar.Something is wrong in that test done by OBR.

And OBR,you say power consumption is brutal(lol),and in load 9700 draws 11W more (shock => ).
And in idle,i somehow have a feeling that Phenom with all the advanced power savings integrated in it( better than what C2Q can offer) has actually so much higher idle power cons.This is probably the BIOS/driver issue,since Phenoms can deactivate not only the cores,but IMC too in idle mode.So i vote this out as CnQ2/CoolCore deactivated or not working as they should.

[bananax]

Ok, I didn't read the whole review but Nice mem config in that picture, last I checked that would be single chan wouldn't it 0.0? (on the intel rig) I hope you didn't use this setup for testing

[bananax]

double post!

[The-PHENOMATOR]

Hmmm....

Well while these kind of pics and reports are great and all for review articles.

For forums use, I for one would much prefer to see some user results with actual screenshots.... as opposed to pre-compiled graphs and data.....

Lets see some actual screenshots..... thats what I'd prefer to see.... something where you can actaully follow the steps taken by a user during the OC process....

These kind of results are similar to what we see pre-launch, I'm far more interested in seeing what users are able to achieve, with the screenshots and details of whats been tried, to see where problem areas are, or what should be avoided.

Theres no doubt in my mind at the moment that the majority of issues lie, with poor mobo support, and hopefully this will sort itself out in time as mobo manufacturers work out the glitches.....!!

actual screen shots would be believable, i could have took these pictures from any forum and made up the same story

[kl0012]

Please, explain this:

For every plattform I install a fresh version of windows xp. I use the same skins, same drivers (only mb-drivers may differ), same settings, same pagefile-size. Before I bench winrar, I reboot the system (not only winrar, for every single benchmark). I open winrar, open the same archive every time (and when I say same archive there should be a high chance to see the same files in archive ) and than I run the benchmark once. When I wan´t to do the benchmark for a 2nd time, I reboot my pc.

Why should there be a difference?

You will see no difference. But if you have two different files with the same size (for example, a text file and a video file), you will see that archiver spent different amount of time for compressing each file, despite the same files size. For a files with a different structures archiver will perform different amount of work. That is, at one of the files will be spent more processing time than at the second and it is becoming more cpu-dependent. Summing up, one can say that for certain types of files, the speed of compression will depend on the speed of memory and for other types of files, the speed will depend on CPU power.
To cite an example of video encoding (which, in a way, is also archiving). Encoding two hours a black background is completed much faster than encoding 2 hours video scenes with the dynamic pursuit.
And it is possible that on cpu-dependent compression Intel quad will be faster then Phenom.

No way that C2Q is better in Winrar.

Any proof?

[EvilBellyLint]

Hmmm....

Well while these kind of pics and reports are great and all for review articles.

For forums use, I for one would much prefer to see some user results with actual screenshots.... as opposed to pre-compiled graphs and data.....

Lets see some actual screenshots..... thats what I'd prefer to see.... something where you can actaully follow the steps taken by a user during the OC process....

These kind of results are similar to what we see pre-launch, I'm far more interested in seeing what users are able to achieve, with the screenshots and details of whats been tried, to see where problem areas are, or what should be avoided.

Theres no doubt in my mind at the moment that the majority of issues lie, with poor mobo support, and hopefully this will sort itself out in time as mobo manufacturers work out the glitches.....!!

[freeloader]

OK, if my Phenom can do a better OC, i will very happy ... i am sure this is not ptoblem with CPU, but mobo ... BUT WE NEED take OC of that all platform ... RD790FX + Phenom = No OC today, maybe in few weeks will be better but now No OC!

Most important consumption is in IDLE! Because most of time are computers in IDLE ... think about it!

Who has a computer on IDLE here in Xtremesystems? You should be running F@H or something from the World Community Grid anytime your system is on.

BTW...I wonder why the motherboard BIOS's are basically CRAP right now? Hopefully, they'll figure this out before the end of 2007.

[EvilBellyLint]

Who has a computer on IDLE here in Xtremesystems? You should be running F@H or something from the World Community Grid anytime your system is on.

BTW...I wonder why the motherboard BIOS's are basically CRAP right now? Hopefully, they'll figure this out before the end of 2007.

Because AMD undertook the near impossible task of attempting to
deliver all three "Spider" platform components (CPU, MOBO, GPU)
to the Market at the same time.

To accomplish such an (overly?)optimistic goal, it's inevitable that
manufacturers will be pressured to push product out the door early
in order to coordinate the simultaneous launch.

My explanation certainly doesn't justify the rush-to-market, but it
does shed light on the current issues that are putting a "false ceiling"
on current performance.

EBL

[DoubleZero]

actual screen shots would be believable, i could have took these pictures from any forum and made up the same story

Pics and screenshots are in the link in the first post.

[MusicIsMyLife]

You will see no difference.

Thanks for your comment.



But OBR, I know, I´m stupid. Because I don´t do it the way anybody else does...

[nemrod]

You will see no difference.

Thanks for your comment.



But OBR, I know, I´m stupid. Because I don´t do it the way anybody else does...

Since your previous post, OBR doesn't answer.
Are you sure to have read the good number of your winrar test?

Sorry just joking a little bit.