The New Heatsink and The Test

AMD wanted us to point out that it has started shipping a new heatsink/fan with its boxed processors:

The heatsink worked fine in our testing (although its retention mechanism was a little awkward). The cooler itself definitely wasn't silent. If you're in search of a truly silent PC you'll want to go aftermarket. That being said, it was quiet enough if you're used to most boxed coolers.

 

Motherboard: Intel DX58SO (Intel X58)
Intel DX48BT2 (Intel X48)
MSI DKA790GX Platinum (AMD 790GX)
Gigabyte GA-MA790GP-DS4H (AMD 790GX)
Gigabyte GA-MA790FX-UD5P (AMD 790FX)
Chipset: Intel X48
Intel X58
AMD 790GX
AMD 790FX
Chipset Drivers: Intel 9.1.1.1010 (Intel)
AMD Catalyst 8.12
Hard Disk: Intel X25-M SSD (80GB)
Memory: G.Skill DDR2-800 2 x 2GB (4-4-4-12)
G.Skill DDR2-1066 2 x 2GB (5-5-5-15)
Qimonda DDR3-1066 4 x 1GB (7-7-7-20)
Corsair DDR3-1333 2 x 2GB (7-7-7-20)
Video Card: eVGA GeForce GTX 280
Video Drivers: NVIDIA ForceWare 180.43 (Vista64)
NVIDIA ForceWare 178.24 (Vista32)
Desktop Resolution: 1920 x 1200
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit (for SYSMark)
Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit
Overclocking – Adventures in Frustration SYSMark 2007 Performance
POST A COMMENT

65 Comments

View All Comments

  • dragonsphere - Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - link

    I read articles like this all the time for multiple websites. I am a professional application performance tester and I can tell you that most of these articles are junk just to stir up the masses. Most of their statistics are based on averages. This means that 51% of the time they are wrong. Have you noticed that none of them show confidence tests to prove that their data is accurate? Also they don't use 90th percentiles. I think this is due to the lack of the tools that they are using to generate these sub-standard statistics. Until the software they are using is more precise I would consider these tests to be junk science. Reply
  • cal954 - Saturday, May 2, 2009 - link

    Thanks for all the information. I used this model to build my first computer, although no matter what I try to do, my CPU-Z never shows me the multiplier being anything but 4.0 and I can't get my core speed above 800 even w/ CnQ disabled. Reply
  • Hamlet2000 - Saturday, May 9, 2009 - link

    You need to update your bios on your motherboard. I had the exact same thing with my new Phenom II 955 build on a Gigabyte board. Once you update, go into your bios and set the clock at 200 x 16. You'll notice the speed difference right away - it's a smoking fast CPU! Reply
  • Edgemeal - Monday, April 27, 2009 - link

    Geez, some of you people make it sound like AMD has to have the fastest CPU in the market or they just aren't any good or something!

    AMD knows what their chip/PC parts are worth in the market place and their price/performance fits in very nicely. I applaud AMD, without them you'd be reading about the new $900 2GHz P4s right about now LOL!
    Reply
  • swapnadip - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link

    Either AnandTech is Intel fan or Intel pays them hefty Loyalty.

    If not, then why every other reviewieng site shows AMD PHENOM 2 X4 955 BE defeating Core i7 940 on evey computing prospects.

    On some instances it has bashed on Core i7 965 extreme.

    This is pretty much biased and helping INTEL play their MONOPOLOY in this sector. In today's market, no two rivals can have their top of line product bearing differences of Day and Night like shown in this review.

    Thanks
    Reply
  • swapnadip - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link

    Either AnandTech is Intel fan or Intel pays them hefty Loyalty.

    If not, then why every other reviewieng site shows AMD PHENOM 2 X4 955 BE defeating Core i7 940 on evey computing prospects.

    On some instances it has bashed on Core i7 965 extreme.

    This is pretty much biased and helping INTEL play their MONOPOLOY in this sector. In today's market, no two rivals can have their top of line product bearing differences of Day and Night like shown in this review.

    Thanks
    Reply
  • swapnadip - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link

    Either AnandTech is Intel fan or Intel pays them hefty Loyalty.

    If not, then why every other reviewieng site shows AMD PHENOM 2 X4 955 BE defeating Core i7 940 on evey computing prospects.

    On some instances it has bashed on Core i7 965 extreme.

    This is pretty much biased and helping INTEL play their MONOPOLOY in this sector. In today's market, no two rivals can have their top of line product bearing differences of Day and Night like shown in this review.

    Thanks
    Reply
  • iFX - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link

    PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+
    PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+
    PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+
    PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+
    PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+
    PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+
    PII 940 BE = $189.99 on Newegg right now and for the last week+

    ----

    Why is it every AMD article on this site has errors?
    Reply
  • wowo - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link

    how x264?x264 benchmark 2.0 is very old .

    it is 819,but new x264 is 1139.intel is better for 1139 a lot.

    please test wirh new x264.
    Reply
  • ultrageek1111 - Friday, April 24, 2009 - link

    you know what they say about black processors... Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now