# My Phenom II vs. QX9650 results at 3810mhz



## sno.lcn (Jan 31, 2009)

I tried to get settings on each system as close as possible for a fair comparison. I've had this done for a week or two now, but due to RL haven't been able to get it posted until now.


*Deneb System:*
Phenom II 940 @ 254*15
Gigabyte MA790GP-DS4H
2x1gb Team Xtreem PC8000 @ 501mhz, 4-4-4-10 2T
Gigabyte HD 4850 @ 750/1100mhz, 8.12 driver 
Gigabyte ODIN Pro 1200w
WD Raptor 36gb
Windows Vista Ultimate


*Yorkfield System:*
QX9650 @ 401*9.5
Gigabyte EP45-UD3P
2x1gb Team Xtreem PC8000 @ 501mhz, 4-4-4-10 2T
Gigabyte HD 4850 @ 750/1100mhz, 8.12 driver 
Gigabyte ODIN Pro 1200w
WD Raptor 36gb
Windows Vista Ultimate







*For PCMark 05, an ACARD ANS-9010 and a GTX 280 @ 770/1230 were subbed.  That's why the scores are so high.  That test could have gone either way though, as finicky as the benchmark is with no tweaking added.

I've been working on a 4ghz shootout, and have the QX9650 part finished and half of the Deneb part, but my single stage decided to crap out so I need to fix it first.



I would like to thank Gigabyte for both motherboards, the VGA, and the PSU.


----------



## LifeOnMars (Jan 31, 2009)

Just the sort of thing i've been looking for. Now could you really be the MAN and post game performance with minimum average and max fps. I really want to justify my purchase of a phenom II 940 :0 Pretty please


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Jan 31, 2009)

how did you get the aq3 score over 200k?? i only get 180k at 3.817 or 225x17?  is there a way to set up aq to make it run better, i've selected all 4 cores in affinity and turned off everything?


----------



## Charper2013 (Jan 31, 2009)

Wow looks like Phenom II is the way to go.. Are you using the Extreme Edition?


----------



## sno.lcn (Jan 31, 2009)

exodusprime1337 said:


> how did you get the aq3 score over 200k?? i only get 180k at 3.817 or 225x17?  is there a way to set up aq to make it run better, i've selected all 4 cores in affinity and turned off everything?



What RAM clocks are you running?  AM3 likes RAM and CPU speed lots.




Charper2013 said:


> Wow looks like Phenom II is the way to go.. Are you using the Extreme Edition?



Yes, the unlocked black edition.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Jan 31, 2009)

i'm using ddr2 1150 @ 1192 5,5,512,2t


----------



## sno.lcn (Jan 31, 2009)

Then that's not the problem I guess.  Can you go higher on the NB frequency?  I'm also seeing very nice gains from increasing fsb as well.


----------



## Charper2013 (Jan 31, 2009)

sno.lcn said:


> Yes, the unlocked black edition.



Wow that means that QX9650 is not even nowhere near worth the extra 800$ more than the Phenom II.


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Jan 31, 2009)

i'm thinking i'll try raising the fsb to where you got it and dropping the ram down a bit, i can't post at 1300Mhz mem so that's out of the question, but the 254 should be doable.  and my nb is at 2800 or so right now.  my mem bandwidth is insane from stock.  huge increase in speeds and very low latency, like 34 or so.


----------



## sno.lcn (Jan 31, 2009)

If you can tighten it up a little at a lower speed it may help.  1000mhz 4-4-4-10-12 is what I'm running, and can take it up to around 1140 at those timing.


----------



## philbrown23 (Jan 31, 2009)

Thanks for this m8 now I know for sure AM3/ Phenom 2 is out of the question for my new build


----------



## wiak (Feb 1, 2009)

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 = $340 
Phenom II 940 Black Edition = $230
thats a freaking $110 diffrent...


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Feb 1, 2009)

no wiak, he was specifiing the price between a p2 940-~220-250 us right now, vs an intel qx9650 which is at 1019.99 on the egg right now here's the link intel qx9650


----------



## Wartz (Feb 1, 2009)

the QX9650 and the Q9650 are the same I think, the QX just has an unlocked multiplier IIRC.


----------



## sno.lcn (Feb 1, 2009)

Wartz said:


> the QX9650 and the Q9650 are the same I think, the QX just has an unlocked multiplier IIRC.



Correct.


----------



## flyin15sec (Feb 1, 2009)

Great review. Looking forward to more tests.


----------



## wolf2009 (Feb 1, 2009)

need some real world tests


----------



## LittleLizard (Feb 1, 2009)

test some games


----------



## sno.lcn (Feb 1, 2009)

wolf2009 said:


> need some real world tests



Anything specific you want to see?


----------



## ShadowFold (Feb 1, 2009)

sno.lcn said:


> Anything specific you want to see?



Games! Crysis, Left 4 Dead, STALKER Clear Sky, World in Conflict etc


----------



## dennisjai (Feb 1, 2009)

sweet! clock for clock the phenom 2 loses, but it's really not by much, well worth the price.


----------



## farlex85 (Feb 1, 2009)

sno.lcn said:


> Anything specific you want to see?



Could you do some Sandra Soft cpu tests? Perhaps time some big files being compressed, and maybe rip a blu-ray or dvd and time it.


----------



## sno.lcn (Feb 1, 2009)

ShadowFold said:


> Games! Crysis, Left 4 Dead, STALKER Clear Sky, World in Conflict etc





farlex85 said:


> Could you do some Sandra Soft cpu tests? Perhaps time some big files being compressed, and maybe rip a blu-ray or dvd and time it.



No problem guys, I'll get started this afternoon


----------



## cdawall (Feb 1, 2009)

your scores are really really low


http://img.techpowerup.org/090129/Capture028.jpg

*stock GPU clocks*

http://img.techpowerup.org/090127/Capture027.jpg


thats just an 8800GTS it shouldn't even look at your card


----------



## farlex85 (Feb 1, 2009)

cdawall said:


> your scores are really really low
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The 4850 is roughly equal to the 8800gts. A bit more powerful but not by much, w/ the oc on the gts they are pretty much equal. Your phenom oc'd further, and your using xp as opposed to vista. Considering all that, both your scores seem about in line w/ each other. Your only about 1k above on each of those (actually only 700 on 3dk6, which could actually easily be made up w/ tweaks).


----------



## dennisjai (Feb 1, 2009)

cdawall said:


> your scores are really really low
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



It doesn't matter whether his scores are low or high, the point is he is setting up a comparison of AMD PII vs Intel Q9XXX. It is meant to show the comparisons between the two with the same setup.

next, you are running Windows XP which benchmarks better. Then you also have everything toned down in XP to get even higher benchmarks. You do not know what he did with Vista when he is comparing the two, he could've just left all the glam on. Once again, he's doing a comparison between AMD & Intel.


----------



## sno.lcn (Feb 1, 2009)

The 01 score is so low because of Vista.  

And your G92 should actually be benching higher than my HD 4850 for 06.

So my scores are actually about where they should be.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 1, 2009)

farlex85 said:


> The 4850 is roughly equal to the 8800gts. A bit more powerful but not by much, w/ the oc on the gts they are pretty much equal. Your phenom oc'd further, and your using xp as opposed to vista. Considering all that, both your scores seem about in line w/ each other. Your only about 1k above on each of those (actually only 700 on 3dk, which could actually easily be made up w/ tweaks).





dennisjai said:


> It doesn't matter whether his scores are low or high, the point is he is setting up a comparison of AMD PII vs Intel Q9XXX. It is meant to show the comparisons between the two with the same setup.
> 
> next, you are running Windows XP which benchmarks better. Then you also have everything toned down in XP to get even higher benchmarks. You do not know what he did with Vista when he is comparing the two, he could've just left all the glam on. Once again, he's doing a comparison between AMD & Intel.





sno.lcn said:


> The 01 score is so low because of Vista.
> 
> And your G92 should actually be benching higher than my HD 4850 for 06.
> 
> So my scores are actually about where they should be.



woops my bad i was just looking at it going wait a min. lol


really the G92 i that close to a 4850?


ill go rerun in vista 64bit just for my piece of mind


----------



## sno.lcn (Feb 1, 2009)

Yeah, Vista sucks in 01 and Aquamark, or really anything that's DX8


----------



## cdawall (Feb 1, 2009)

sno.lcn said:


> Yeah, Vista sucks in 01 and Aquamark, or really anything that's DX8



well its better than windows 7 it keeps crashing on me in 01


----------



## wahdangun (Feb 1, 2009)

yeah please test some games( on all resolution if you can)


----------



## sno.lcn (Feb 1, 2009)

Reinstalling Vista on my test bench for the AMD testing as we speak, so far I'm going to be adding the following tests:

Crysis (at maybe 5 different combinations of settings)
Left 4 Dead (at a few difference settings)
Devil May Cry bench (maybe)
Sandra
Ripping a few DVDs
Converting movies for my ipod since it takes a while.
CrystalMark
Geekbench
Winrar (maybe)

If there's anything specific anyone else wants to see, let me know soon please.


----------



## sno.lcn (Feb 2, 2009)

First post has been updated with new results.  There are a few game benchies I still need to do, but I need to download the games first


----------



## Darren (Feb 2, 2009)

Strange results. The Phenom II whopping the QX9650 in Crysis. Didn't think I'd see that!


----------



## farlex85 (Feb 2, 2009)

Darren said:


> Strange results. The Phenom II whopping the QX9650 in Crysis. Didn't think I'd see that!



Yeah something went wrong there on the qx system.  Very uneven and unlikely scores there.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Feb 2, 2009)

Charper2013 said:


> Wow that means that QX9650 is not even nowhere near worth the extra 800$ more than the Phenom II.



q9650 has a multi of 11 i think from factory ... do the math


----------



## dennisjai (Feb 2, 2009)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> q9650 has a multi of 11 i think from factory ... do the math



uh no, it would be 9.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Feb 2, 2009)

dennisjai said:


> uh no, it would be 9.



Thanks for the correcting, fotgot that its 1333 not 1066


----------



## kid41212003 (Feb 2, 2009)

The crysis gap is huge, I think something's wrong?


----------



## sno.lcn (Feb 2, 2009)

I was thinking the same thing, but I just reran everything, almost identical results.


----------



## wolf2009 (Feb 2, 2009)

wow, thats huge gap. check your driver control panel settings, and benchmark tool settings something definitely wrong


----------



## PaulieG (Feb 2, 2009)

Hey sno, what's your vcore on the 940 @3.8ghz? Also, what have you heard about vcore max on these chips? I'm not asking in terms of heat, but more about electron migration. Anything?


----------



## sno.lcn (Feb 2, 2009)

It needed 1.52v.  I don't know where the ideal threshold is yet though.


----------



## wahdangun (Feb 2, 2009)

yeah, the gap was realy huge and why crysis very high > crysis high it's unbeliveable


----------



## sno.lcn (Feb 2, 2009)

I'll rerun the AMD tests after class today then.  For the 3rd time.  


I'll add the CPU bench for Crysis as well, at the same list of settings.


----------



## paolo.oliva2 (Feb 2, 2009)

sno.lcn said:


> I tried to get settings on each system as close as possible for a fair comparison. I've had this done for a week or two now, but due to RL haven't been able to get it posted until now.
> 
> 
> *Denab System:*
> ...



good banch and good work.

I want write this.
The Phenom 940 have one best IPC not with timings DDR2 4-4-4-12, but best IPC with max possible speed ram and NB work good if have clock double of ram.
Ram 1Ghz, NB 2GHz, ram 1,250Ghz, NB 2,5GHz.

See this:

http://www.hwupgrade.it/forum/showpost.php?p=25996147&postcount=636

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=816552

http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=816538

http://www.hwbot.org/compare.do?resultId=816537

This is winrar with one 1,5TB Seagate Barracuda (single HD and 4GHz OC but NB 2,850GHz and DDR2@1250MHz)





This is very nice... Photoworxx Everest at 4,1GHz


----------



## Binge (Feb 2, 2009)

Very high test seems correct for me.  Memory bandwidth is a huge factor when it comes to playing at that setting.


----------



## HTC (Feb 2, 2009)

I find it interesting that DVDRip was just over 20% faster on PII: Does it use all 4 cores?

It's more then just a few % faster: that's a *significant* margin, there.


----------



## sno.lcn (Feb 2, 2009)

I have a good bit of more Sandra data I haven't posted yet.  I'll sift through it and get it posted around lunchtime.  And, of course, keep testing, testing, testing 


*Edit: And updated with all the data I have currently.  Stay tuned, lots more incoming as I find time


----------



## cdawall (Feb 2, 2009)

hey what is the NB you are using on the phenom?


----------



## ShadowFold (Feb 2, 2009)

MA790GP-DS4H is 790GX


----------



## spearman914 (Feb 2, 2009)

I owe u a big thanx!!! Next rig = Phenom II!!!


----------



## paolo.oliva2 (Feb 4, 2009)

Vista64...

3045 clock HT 2436 NB 2436 punteggio 3532 1,15993 punti a hertz (RAM 1082,6MHz)
3958 clock HT 2436 NB 2436 punteggio 4466 1,12834 (RAM 1082,6MHz)
3958 clock HT 1827 NB 2436 punteggio 4562 1,15260 (RAM 1082,6MHz)
4030 clock HT 1040 NB 2600 punteggio 4668 1,15831 (RAM 866,8MHz)

3GHz





and more


----------

