The Test

Note: In light of the AMD Phenom CnQ issues, we have tested with Cool'n'Quiet disabled until we can determine the root cause or solution for the problem.


AMD Phenom X4 9950 BE (2.6GHz)
AMD Phenom X4 9850 BE (2.5GHz)
AMD Phenom X4 9550 (2.2GHz)
AMD Phenom X3 8650 (2.3GHz)
AMD Phenom X3 8450 (2.1GHz)
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 (2.66GHz/1333MHz)
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 (2.50GHz/1333MHz)
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.40GHz/1066MHz)
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 (3.16GHz/1333MHz)
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 (3.00GHz/1333MHz)
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 (2.33GHz/1333MHz)
Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 (2.53GHz/1066MHz)
Intel Core 2 Duo E4600 (2.40GHz/800MHz)

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-MA790FX-DQ6 (AMD 790FX - for 9950 BE)
Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H (AMD 780G)
Intel DG35EC (Intel G35)
Chipset: AMD 790FX
AMD 780G
Intel G35
Chipset Drivers:

AMD Catalyst 8.6

Hard Disk: Western Digital Raptor 150GB
Memory: Corsair XMS2 DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 (1GB x 2)
Video Card: eVGA GeForce 9800 GTX (only for Gaming Tests, IGP for the rest)
Video Drivers: AMD Catalyst 8.6
NVIDIA ForceWare 174.74
Desktop Resolution: 1920 x 1200 (Vista Basic Theme)
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit SP1
The 140W TDP: Is Phenom the new NetBurst? Overall System Performance - SYSMark 2007


View All Comments

  • Regs - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link

    Between cool n' quite and flimsy power management, it just seems like AMD overshot their goals. Though to me, it seems like they could easily be fixed in Shanghai, but that's if they can keep all four cores busy instead I have 3 cores at stall, and one pumping at max in threaded or shared instruction instances. This will though cause more power consumption, and I think you guys all ready said that mobo support is just not their to power these suckers. You can have your cake, you just cant eat it.

    What do you goes think about AMD at 2.6 GHz? Looks more competitive stacked up to Intel's finniest at the given price point. Just makes me wonder if the over complicated power management features are keeping AMD from hitting 3.0 GHz or above. What do you think is holding AMD back?
  • DigitalFreak - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link

    Shitty engineering? Reply
  • Griswold - Wednesday, July 2, 2008 - link

    Well, I dont know for sure. But its definitely not moronic comments from dumbasses such as you. Reply
  • Assimilator1 - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link

    Yeah it looks like they've messed up the clock speeds for the lower Phenoms too, lol. Reply
  • Aries1470 - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link

    Just found the following strange:
    AMD Phenom X4 9850 $205
    AMD Phenom X4 9750 $215
    The slower one is more expensive, while in the article it has the prices reversed?
    "The new Phenom X4 9950 will occupy the $235 space, which will push the 9850 down to $215. The Phenom 9750 will go away temporarily to make room for the new chips at the high end, leaving the 9650 at $195 and the 9550 at $175."

    I wonder which one is correct ;-) Hmm... I think a proof reader and an eye for detail is needed :-)

    Ok, now for me to read the rest of the article.

    Btw, any update on the new VIA Nano CPU - Codename Isaiah? Will there be a review? It is as fast as a 9150e or faster at the same clock speed? It has much less power usage. Now if someone over here could do a review or get more info that would be great, since it is like there is no other x86 competitor out there...

    That's all from me.
  • Gary Key - Tuesday, July 1, 2008 - link

    The 9750 pricing will not be changed by AMD officially and thankfully that model is being phased out in the retail sector and replaced by the 9850BE.

    I have a picture of the VIA Nano PR flag from Computex and a handout explaining how it should perform. That is about as far as VIA is willing to go at this point with information. I did hear from some OEMS that VIA was not even close to getting the CPU out this summer as originally thought, much less advanced reviews. However, we do push them on an almost daily basis for it.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now