Quote Originally Posted by informal View Post
Thanks for that post KTE.
What are your thoughts on this Phenom review by bit-tech?Something is VERY fishy with their game scores..According to their charts ALL Phenoms get some weird bottleneck when it comes to graphics related tasks(no matter the clocks).It looks like a board/HTT problem,or possibly PCI-E problem.Can you take a look and write your thoughts when you get time?
Can't really comment on games because I haven't tested them. I've not gamed properly since I started studies and gradually I've completely left it (only play Urban Terror & HL2:LC at times). I would've tested gaming, I still can with pretty much any card out now but I'm really not into it, it's a headache with too many sub-issues and variables that take up too much time. My monitor is also not big, there's 3 here and they're only 22.5", 19" and 16".

Some things I noted:

a) Their memory bandwidth is twice mine.

b) Their memory latency is 20ns slower than mine.

c) They have higher Core VID (higher amps fed), so naturally that will have higher power draw/temps than retail Phenom 9500 and 9600.

d) Their test system has 122W higher power draw idling than mine at stock.

e) They need to make the files they use for benchmarks standardized so everyone can re-run them and all the sites can test the same benchmark each time. Right now I cannot comment on those times because of so many variables involved.

f) I usually use SUPER for my media file conversions, every day. It runs faster on Phenom 2.4GHz than on E6750/E6850 at 2.8GHz as I've tested on the same day converting a 150MB 640:480 528kbps 25FPS Sorenson H263 encoded MP4 file with ACC VBR 1 channel 22k 128kbps audio into 320:240 384Kbps 15FPS H.264/AVC encoded MP4 file with ACC VBR 2 channel 48k 128kbps audio.

g) WinRAR looks a little low to me.

h) The NB clocks are too high for retail Phenom (messes up oc quick).

i) Their sample looks like an early batch. It has power problems and overclock problems worse than retail. My core gets less Amps fed to it than theirs and yet is still fully stable at 1.296V at 2.55GHz (as of todays renewed testing).

j) Their power consumption rise is simply because of high volts/amps to the core. That is quite obvious.

k) How did they overclock properly if they have the same issues as me of AOD random lockups? Most overclocking is best done within Windows. We're talking 500MHz higher possible this way.

l) Their Phenom core is multiplier unlocked but far worse than any retail yet we've seen. It can only go to 205MHz HT ref. Even the worst around can do 220MHz HT ref and average is 240MHz HT ref.

m) Their power consumption figures are strange for me. I'll have to checkup on those before I comment. Specifically, QX9650 being lower than C2D while its double the TDP and Phenom/Q6600 consumption.

n) Their gaming shows Phenom 2.2GHz is no better than 2.6GHz and all are far behind a Q6600, even more so than QX9650. If any of the multiple QX9650 people on this board could just test some apps/gaming on it then we can compare properly. I cannot find a spare Yorkfield to test, so I would have to buy one and since they are all non-existent yet, they don't count to me. I would consider myself the most stupid person if I bought one of them... not even when I'm drunk. It's like Gates buying Isle of Man just because he needs to build an acre large house on it. Waiting for feasible Yorkies like Q9550.

o) If they could've tried to overclock NB/HT/RAM/CPU separately and compare the results, we could see more clearly of any bottlenecks. I did some quick HT and PCIe testing and the results are quite surprising to me.

Quote Originally Posted by linhvndiy
Hi KTE: Thanks a lot for the post.
Please give more info:"run P95 4-cores with error checking and keep an eye on your temps and which core screws up quick. There will be one weak one usually". How to run P95, in Blend test or large FFTs?
Small FFT for just cores while oc (large in the end for hours test). Make sure your RAM is stable though.

And how the temp in well control? Under what temp?
This is personal opinion really.
*For just benching, I tolerate upto 68C load.
*For 24/7 stability, I tolerate upto 55C load but try hard for sub 50C load.

I never usually run a CPU which tops 53C 8 hour P95 in-place large FFT load.


blargman: Can you give us a CPU-Z screenshot of the SPD tab?

Also update your BIOS to 112, 113, P0C, P0D or even the 1.1.

64-bit only sees 3GB? That is usually the case in 32-bit only since you have limited address space and it's used by hardware I/O mapping. Not sure what is going on here. Whhich slots have you installed the RAM in?

You're all welcome.