Does the Phenom X4 9350e Overclock Any Better?

We've already proved that the 9350e isn't a good value when it comes to power consumption, you're much better off buying a cheaper 9550 and undervolting it, but what about overclocking headroom?

The word frustrating comes to mind when describing our attempts to get a stable overclock on the 9350e. So frustrating that we ended up trying a myriad of different boards based on the 780G/GF8200/GF8300 chipsets before calling it quits for the time being. We still have our 790FX/780a/750a boards lined up for stability testing with initial results showing a definite improvement over the IGP products. But having the capability to overclock this processor more than 20% comes at the expense of a 64% increase in motherboard cost. Plus, this CPU will require a 19% increase in core voltages for that overclock that kinda defeats the whole purpose of purchasing a low power consumption CPU to be utilized in a low cost, low energy integrated platform. In the end, if you want to overclock a Phenom, we highly suggest buying the 9850/9950 Black Edition processors.

Our final stable overclock on our IGP systems is a whopping, wait for it, 2.25GHz.

Click to Enlarge

We could only coax a measly 250MHz increase in speed from our particular sample resulting in a 12.5% core overclock. Granted, this CPU would post at 2.5GHz (10x250HTT) with 1.425V applied to the CPU but we always ended up with a 225HTT to 230HTT setting at the stock 10x CPU multiplier for stability reasons (2.25GHz - 2.30GHz). In the end, our 24/7 setup on either the 780G or GF8200 platform equates to a 2.25GHz processor speed with the NB core clock at a healthy 2025MHz for best performance. We tried lowering our NB core clock to the stock 1800MHz but all we accomplished was decreasing system performance about 3% without any realizing any true increases in overclocking. Even more disappointing was the fact that we had to set our core voltage to 1.350V in order to maintain stability throughout testing. We will reserve our final comments until we have additional samples of the 9350e series. However, at this point, either support in the IGP BIOS releases we have is still immature or more than likely; these processors cannot pass for a 9550 bin speed while being culled out for their 65W TDP capability.

Speaking of the 9550, our retail sample overclocked from 2.2GHz to 2.695GHz for a respectable (for Phenom) 22.5% in core speed. This required an increase in core voltage to 1.40V.

Click to Enlarge

We tried in vain to get above 2.7GHz with this CPU without going crazy on the voltages. It would POST at 11x260 on 1.425V with a NB core clock around 2080MHz, but the 24/7 stability target meant a reduction in HTT bus speed to 245MHz but with the NB clock at 2205MHz, not bad for a 780G platform. On our 790FX platform, this same CPU is capable of a 24/7 setting at 11x255 (2.8GHz, 27.5% improvement) on 1.400V with a 2295MHz NB clock speed.

Making Your Own 9350e Overclocking or Overcooking?


View All Comments

  • Regs - Tuesday, July 01, 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 01, 2008 - link

    Shitty engineering? Reply
  • Griswold - Wednesday, July 02, 2008 - link

    Well, I dont know for sure. But its definitely not moronic comments from dumbasses such as you. Reply
  • Assimilator1 - Tuesday, July 01, 2008 - link

    Yeah it looks like they've messed up the clock speeds for the lower Phenoms too, lol. Reply
  • Aries1470 - Tuesday, July 01, 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 01, 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