X2 5600+ 2.9 GHz to Phenom X4 9650 2.3 GHz results

J

JimmiG

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
2,429

Well after the price dropped I decided to buy a cheap Phenom 9650 as a drop-in replacement for my aging Athlon X2. By selling the old CPU, the upgrade cost was pretty minimal. My next upgrade will probably be a DDR3/45nm Phenom or Nehalem (depending on relative pricing and performance), but this CPU should hold me over until those become a little cheaper and more mainstream (spring/summer 2009 time frame).

I'm using an older 690 board, probably the cheapest AM2 board on the market as it's a special, simplified version of the already simplistic M2A-VM budget m-ATX board. This means no HyperTransport3, but the difference is said to be negligible. CnQ 2.0 is also non-functional which means slightly higher idle temp/power draw. Other than that, the ability to drop these CPUs into pretty much any AM2 board is a pretty big advantage and the board, while only certified for 95W CPUs (which means the X4 9650 and X3 8750 are as high as it will go, at least until Deneb), has been rock solid so far.


Out with the old CPU, the 2.5 GHz Athlon64 X2 4800+ Brisbane at 2.9 Ghz = 5600+ speed



In with the new, Phenom X4 9650 at 2.3 Ghz



Ready for test run – switching CPUs is one of the easiest upgrades you can do these days, thanks to the excellent design of the coolers and retention mechanism. Just align it and swing the small lever around. No chipped cores and no risk of running a freaking screwdriver through the mobo....



POST'ed without problems. BIOS Setup confirms that the CPU is detected correctly.





Cooler comparison – X2 cooler to the left, Phenom X4 cooler to the right. They are very similar, very light aluminium heatsinks. The Phenom puts out nearly 50% more heat than my 65W X2, but even though the cooler looks almost the same, it doesn't seem to have any problems at stock speed.

Idle: 45C (using dynamic fan speed so cooler is nearly silent).

Full load: 55C - CPU fan reaches 3100 RPM which is not its maximum possible speed. That is either 3300 or 3500 RPM. You can hear the fan at this point, but it's not very loud. The PSU fan also spins slightly faster than before because of the increased load.

These temps are almost identical to my overclocked X2 temps as it would also max out at 55C with the CPU fan at about 90% but slightly higher than the the X2 at stock 4800+ speeds, full load at 52C.

Now for some benchmark results:

3DMark 06
Athlon X2 5600+ 2.9 Ghz
Total: 10042
SM2.0: 4425
SM3.0: 5197
CPU: 2076

Phenom 9650 2.3 Ghz:
Total: 10658
SM2.0: 4191
SM3.0: 4935
CPU: 3108

Comments: The Phenom is actually slightly slower in all game tests, but thanks to the higher synthetic CPU score, it still scores a higher total 3DMark result. Still, at 2.3 Ghz it's awfully close to the 2.9 Ghz X2 in every test – 3DMark 06 does not take much advantage of multiple cores, except for the synthetic CPU tests.

3DMark Vantage
Athlon64 X2 5600+ 2.9 Ghz:
Total: 5789
GPU: 6564
CPU: 4269

Phenom X4 9650 2.3 Ghz:
Total: 6753
GPU: 6531
CPU: 7518

Comments: 3DMark Vantage is obviously better at taking advantage of the extra cores. It also does a good job of isolating the GPU for its GPU subscore – it's virtually identical even when using two very different CPUs.

UT3 ShangriLa Flyby HOC Benchmark, ”High with tweaks” no AA/AF, 1680x1050

Athlon X2 5600+ 2.9 Ghz: 56FPS
Phenom 9650 2.3 Ghz: 89 FPS

With 4X AA/16X AF:

Athlon X2 5600+ 2.9 GHz: 55 FPS
Phenom 9650 2.3 GHz: 55 FPS

Comments: Wow, the 2.3 Ghz Phenom is almost 60% faster than the 2.9 Ghz X2 and this is a real game I'm testing. Obviously it's GPU bound with FSAA/AF enabled. However this is just a flyby demo. In a botmatch or during online play, when the CPU is doing mre work, the Phenom would probably maintain a higher framerate even when there's lots of action going on while the X2 would struggle.

Call of Juarez DX10 Rolling Demo, 1680x1050
Athlon X2 5600+ 2.9 GHz:
Min: 17.8
Max: 75.5
Avg. 35.9

Phenom 9650 2.3 GHz:
Min: 20
Max: 80.2
Avg: 36.1

With 4X AA
Athlon X2 5600+ 2.9GHz:
Min:10.6
Max: 54.6
Avg: 23

Phenom 9650 2.3GHz:
Min: 11.1
Max: 53.5
Avg: 23.1

Comments: Another GPU bound benchmark with no AI or physics active. Still, the 2.3 Ghz Phenom manages to outperform the 2.9 Ghz X2.

Oblivion, 1680x1050 4xAA Adaptive Q/16XAF, AEVWD, QTP3, Unique Landscapes, Better Cities plus many more mods
AthlonX2 5600+ 2.9 Ghz
Outdoors: 21
Market District: 12

Phenom X4 9650 2.3 Ghz
Outdoors: 20
Market District: 12

Comments: An older game that doesn't scale well with increasing number of cores. I'm using a ton of mods here (actually going to cut down on them to improve stability and performance) which means the framerate is only a fraction of what you get from ”Vanilla” Oblivion. Again, the Phenom at 2.3 Ghz performs roughly the same as an AthlonX2 Brisbane at 2.9 Ghz. When you take into account that the fastest Phenom runs at 2.6 Ghz and Deneb will hopefully go much faster, it doesn't look all that bad. Of course that's without taking any Intel CPUs into account as nothing from AMD can touch any Intel CPU above ~2.5 Ghz.

Crysis 1680x1050 High DX10
Athlon64 X2 5600+ 2.9 Ghz
CPU test: 25.77
GPU test: 22.93

Phenom X4 9650 2.3 Ghz
CPU test: 27.56
GPU test: 26.76

Comments: Ironically, the ”GPU Test” saw the biggest improvement when upgrading the CPU. Crysis is clearly not fully optimized for Quad core. Still, the 2.3 Ghz Phenom outperforms the 2.9 Ghz X2 in both tests. Let's hope Warhead is more optimized for Quad cores so the improvement is more like that observed in UT3.

Flight Simulator X, DX10, 4XAA Boeing Field Runway 13R highest detail settings
Athlon 64 X2 5600+ 2.9 Ghz: 11.9
Phenom 9650 2.3 Ghz: 11.3

Comments. FSX scales extremely poorly both with faster CPUs and with faster videocards (it's actually faster on the 9600GT than the GTX280 according to THG). The engine is supposed to be threaded, but it only uses multiple threads for streaming scenery and texture data faster, not to improve the framerate. The only way to improve framerate in FSX is through brute-force methods like high clockspeeds and high IPC's. The ideal CPU is probably one of those C2D's with crazy amounts of cache, overclocked to 4 Ghz. Still, the 2.9 Ghz X2 is only 5% faster despite the 26% clock speed advantage.

Bioshock Welcome To Rapture 1680x1050 16X AF
Athlon X2 5600+ 2.9 Ghz: 31
Phenom X4 9650 2.3 Ghz: 37

Comments: I decided on a particular location in the level with a lower framerate and saved the game there. I then read out the framerate using FRAPS. Again the Phenom wins – the game feels smoother too. The slight mouse lag that was present with the X2 is completely gone – the Phenom appears to be producing a more steady and even framerate with the FPS not dipping as much when there's lots of combat going on.


So in games that do not take advantage of multiple cores, the Phenom is about as fast as an X2 at between 2.8 and 2.9 Ghz. As soon as a game starts using the third and fourth core even to a small degree, the Phenom leaves the 5600+ X2 behind, being 60% faster in UT3 despite the 600 Mhz lower clockspeed, possibly even faster in an actual botmatch. Hopefully, the trend I observed with UT3 will be the norm for future games. In such games, the Phenom X3 and X4 can at least compete with Intel's Dual Core chips, allthough their Quad chips will of course blow the Phenom away.



The TLB issue and low clock speed have caused many to stick with their X2 or switch to an Intel platform, and never considered the Phenom as an option at all. The Phenom brand name is still associated with buggy, unstable and slow chips.This is unfortunate. Anyone in the market for a new AM2 CPU should look at the Phenoms rather than the K8 X2's IMO. The higher IPC already makes them faster in almost all apps, and as Quad core CPUs become more common and developer support increases, the Phenom will only increase its lead. If the board can take a 125W+ CPU, the higher clocked Phenoms can be had for not much more than the 9650 and they will outperform even the fastest X2's in virtually everything.

If you already have a fast Athlon X2, then whether a Phenom makes sense or not depends on what you use your computer for or even which games you play if you use it for gaming. Switching from the X2 6000+ to the X4 9650 for example will most likely reduce single-threaded performance slightly. Since I also use my computer for making music, the Phenom made a lot of sense. I can now use almsot twice as many virtual instruments in the DAW before the audio begins to stutter and playback fails.
 
very nice comparions! i'm still stuck on a 3800+ x2, but i'll be going intel route this winter...
 
Nice review of the two chips. Good to know that event the low Phenom clock can keep up/beat the higher clocked x2. I can't wait for 45nm phenoms, but with the price drops I might just have to grab one now! :LOL:
 
Mackowitz said:
Nice review of the two chips. Good to know that event the low Phenom clock can keep up/beat the higher clocked x2. I can't wait for 45nm phenoms, but with the price drops I might just have to grab one now! :LOL:
Click to expand...

Yeah, this surprised me a little. I was afraid that the Phenom would be unbearably slow in single-threaded games/apps but even at its worst, it's still nearly as fast as the 2.9 GHz Brisbane (which is slower than Windsor, however).
 
JimmiG said:
Yeah, this surprised me a little. I was afraid that the Phenom would be unbearably slow in single-threaded games/apps but even at its worst, it's still nearly as fast as the 2.9 GHz Brisbane (which is slower than Windsor, however).
Click to expand...

Nice review, but seriously? Everybody knows Phenom has much higher IPC than K8, were you expecting clock for clock parity between the two or something? :p
 
harpoon said:
Nice review, but seriously? Everybody knows Phenom has much higher IPC than K8, were you expecting clock for clock parity between the two or something? :p
Click to expand...

Everybody knows? Surely you jest. In fact this stigma is the very thing that Intel's viral marketing, especially it's Retail Edge Program, is all about. So I would say their are some that know, and many more that don't. Typically, when something is posted around the net that does in fact show Phenom as a viable alternative, these posts are very quickly minimized by the horde. ;)

Thanks to the OP for a great post! :) It certainly looks like a fantastic chip and worthwhile upgrade.
 
I knew that the IPC of the K10 was better than K8, but in gaming apps that don't use multiple cores well, I was surprised. What I thought I knew was that core for core, a Phenom core was 10%-20% faster than X2 core, so I would have expected a 2.3ghz Phenom to lose to the x2 5600 :confused: in gaming applications. I've seen in many threads people saying that the Phenom would be a downgrade in gaming versus this or that X2, since the Phenom clocks are low. This comparison kind of debunks that argument. Maybe?
 
very informative post. i have actually been debating between two amd chips for a new build and this cpu comparison really helped.
 
I just went from a 939/X2 3800+ based setup to a Phenom 9850 BE paired with a Gigabyte GA0MA78GM and 4GB of Kingston HyperX. I love it. I was set on core2quad, but this was so much cheaper and I don't regret it at all.
 
flippin_waffles said:
Everybody knows? Surely you jest. In fact this stigma is the very thing that Intel's viral marketing, especially it's Retail Edge Program, is all about. So I would say their are some that know, and many more that don't. Typically, when something is posted around the net that does in fact show Phenom as a viable alternative, these posts are very quickly minimized by the horde. ;)
.
Click to expand...

I'm speaking about enthusiasts, not your Average Joe, most who probably don't even know what Phenom is. ;)
 
I know what you meant harpoon. I am refering to enthusiasts as well. However my definition of enthusiasts covers more than just the elite, OMFGBBQSAUCE add N2 crowd. If somebody is interested in computer hardware to the point of seeking out information to build their own computer, and have a joy in tinkering and getting their "hands dirty", then they are an "enthusiast". Those are the kinds of people that will perhaps come across a thread like this, as you well know, and be interested in these results. Now, it seems to me that your intent here is obviously to cast as much doubt in their minds as possible.
And the same is true for countless other similar posts around the net for the last year at least.
BTW, Phenom's are vastly more fun to tinker with, with two fold more options to mess with. There is also a terrific piece of software with more options than even the OMFGBBSAUCE add N2 crowd could hope to know what to do with. So for someone looking to play around with their hardware, while simultaneously offering a substantial upgrade at minimal cost, AMD has a great solution here. :)
 
I have to upgrade soon , since my old S939 mobo is givin me more and more headaches. Not sure if stickin with the old X2 or goin to Phenom .So posts like this one are very welcome for me and i guess for many others here who are in the same boat.
Thx OP.
 
I thought the review was helpful, thanks JimmiG, can you get in some Super PI 1M numbers between the two in stock settings? I know they are single threaded apps, and here is where I want to see some #s.
 
Going by those test results above a 8750 Toliman would beat any X2 in price/power except maybe the 5400+BE. 8750s seem to overclock to around 2.9ghz so that would put a hurt on a Brisbane @ 3.3-3.4ghz for single threaded apps and the extra core would justify the $130 versus $77 over the long term. We'll have to wait and see what the new 8750 BEs do when they come out.
 
I'd like to preface this by saying that I own both AMD and Intel, and that fanboy I am not.

I think the Phenoms have been given a bad rep. Sure, they aren't as good in gaming vs. the higher clocked Core 2's... but they are more comparable in price to a Core 2 Duo than Core 2 Quad, not to mention you can get a no-frills-barred motherboard for $100, whereas the equivalent motherboards in the Intel camp are slightly more expensive ($140-$250).

I actually think that picking up a Phenom 9850 or 9950 and a good motherboard with an SB750 south bridge motherboard is quite a good way to go. It will overclock to around 3Ghz (allowing it to easily compete with Core 2 Duos in games) and cost $50-100 less than going the Q6600 route.

Not to mention the fact that AMD is sticking to AM2 for the forseeable future, and Intel is chanign sockets for Nehalem.
 
What I thought I knew was that core for core, a Phenom core was 10%-20% faster than X2 core, so I would have expected a 2.3ghz Phenom to lose to the x2 5600
Click to expand...

In FSX and the 3DMark 06 game tests it produces about 94-95% of the FPS of the 2.9 GHz X2, which translates to the equivalent of about a 2.7 to 2.75 GHz X2, or the 5200+. So it was definitely a downgrade in those cases since the 5200+ can be had for a fraction of the cost of any Phenom, and overclocks to beyond 3 GHz.

On the other hand, nearly all modern games seem to take advantage of quad core at least to a small degree. I mean even if it only uses 10% - 20% of the potential of the two extra cores, that's already quite significant. Instead of 20% faster it's now 30% - 40% faster than the X2 per clock. Had I tested different and older games, the Phenom might have looked worse but for modern, multithreaded games, Quad (or Triple) core is the way to go.

I think the Phenoms have been given a bad rep. Sure, they aren't as good in gaming vs. the higher clocked Core 2's... but they are more comparable in price to a Core 2 Duo than Core 2 Quad, not to mention you can get a no-frills-barred motherboard for $100, whereas the equivalent motherboards in the Intel camp are slightly more expensive ($140-$250).
Click to expand...

I agree. This is probably in part because the launch of the Phenom was a complete fiasco. It launched at only 2.3 GHz, didn't overclock well, and was more expensive than the 2.4 GHz Q6600. Then there was the TLB bug...at this point AMD might as well just have recalled all Phenoms and re-launched the product six months later. The TLB bug itself wasn't that severe, but in combination with the other early problems, it did incredible damage to the Phenom brand name.

The TLB bug is permanently fixed, the pricing has been adjusted and the CPU is starting to reach decent frequencies now, so it's definitely a different product from the one that launched in late 2007.
 
Damn nice post. Well thought out and fluent. This definitely gives me a good idea in keeping with the AMD route.
 
Glad others found it useful. I had a hard time locating benchmarks comparing the X2 range to the Phenom, especially in the games I was interested in. So I honestly had no idea what to expect when I switched CPUs. I knew that the Phenom had a higher IPC, but I didn't know if it was enough to outweigh the 600 MHz clock speed advantage of the X2. While most who upgrade to the Phenom will probably go with the 9950BE and have a newer mobo, my results should still be an indication of relative performance between the two CPU generations.

I tried some overclocking today.. I know I said I would be "careful" but I had to try :p

What you need to keep in mind is that I have a bare bones m-ATX mobo (see pics!). Due to the limitations, this does not reflect the true overclock potential of the CPU.

-No way to adjust VCore, besides with the 95W max wattage, that would probably not have been a good idea anyway.

-No way to set the speed or ratios of the northbridge, HT link etc. Only "FSB" can be adjusted

-Stock AMD cooler, one ducted 80mm intake fan, two 80mm exhaust fans (all 2000 RPM) plus PSU 120mm fan - a modest air cooling setup.

It appears the max 100% stable overclock is 218 MHz FSB which gives me 2507 MHz with the stock 11.5x multi. Up to 222 MHz FSB/2553 MHz was stable for benchmarks, but Prime95 would eventually suffer a failure in one of the cores. This is a 9% overclock, while the X2 would overclock 16% under the same conditions. Considering that both the 9750 and 9850 use a higher VCore and suck up 125W, I think 9850 speeds at the lower voltage and ~95W power is actually quite acceptable. Temperatures remain unchanged, probably because the voltage was not increased.

With increased VCore and more overclocking options, much higher frequencies would probably have been possible. With AMD Overdrive and a newer chipset, you can even overclock each core individually, so the weakest core won't limit your OC potential.

Some results at the overclocked speed (2.5 GHz)

3DMark06
Total: 11048
SM2.0: 4401
SM3.0: 5166
CPU: 3086

3DMark Vantage
Total: 6758
GPU: 6413
CPU: 8060

UT3: 94 FPS

Crysis:
CPU: 27.15
GPU: 28.88

FSX: 12.6 FPS

Not a dramatic increase, of course, but I beat the 11k 3DMark barrier, which is always something. Also in FSX it's faster than the 2.9GHz X2 now (allthough FPS always fluctuates a little in this game, so it's hard to tell exactly by how much).

Edit: I found that Ganged mode provided better performance in 3DMark 06, 3DMark Vantage, Crysis and UT3 than Unganged. The difference is between 1% and 7%. However it also reduced the overclockability of the reference clock by about 2 MHz it seems.
 
Thanks a lot for posting info on your benchmarks. I'm having problems with a new build. I have an Asus M3A78-EM, AMD X2 5400+ and OCZ 800MHz "Special Ops" RAM. Some benchmarks with motherboards with the same 780G chipset and integrated HD3200 have scored about 2000 in 3DMark06. Even looking at the results in 3DMark06, the results show 16 systems with a maximum of 2137. I scored 1200 but I'm having general slowness in my machine. However, it says the CPU score was 2115. Does that mean my CPU is performing normally and something else like the RAM might be defective?
 
WTF? thats the heatsink they give you for a 95/125w TDP processor? all aluminum pos? no copper base, no pipes no nothing? I remeber you used to get a heatpipe cooler with every dual core except a 3800+ back in the day.
 
Does that mean my CPU is performing normally and something else like the RAM might be defective?
Click to expand...
Sounds like a problem with the built-in graphics. Make sure you're running the RAM in dual channel mode and that the GPU gets a good chunk (at least 256MB) allocated for itself and that all the graphics drivers and video settings are in order.

WTF? thats the heatsink they give you for a 95/125w TDP processor? all aluminum pos? no copper base, no pipes no nothing? I remeber you used to get a heatpipe cooler with every dual core except a 3800+ back in the day.
Click to expand...

The cooler for the 125W/140W CPUs is probably the heatpipe version. For the 95W/65W CPUs, a standard aluminium heatsink gets the job done.

The Athlon X2 6000+ is about 20% faster than the Phenom X2 9850 in the Crysis Warhead CPU benchmark.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Crysis doesn't really take advantage of more than two cores. However, the results don't make perfect sense. If you look at the Minimun framerate, the 6000+ gets 24FPS which is faster than even the E8400 and second only to the QX6850, while the Phenom only gets 9 FPS. I think we can safely assume that the 6000+ is not 2.5x faster than the Phenom 9850. I've found that at least with the original Crysis, you need to run a few demo loops before the framerate stabilizes... Also, if you look at the framerate per-clock, according to their benchmarks, a 2.5 GHz X2 would be 0.5 FPS faster than a 2.5 GHz Phenom in terms of average framerate.

It is possible I guess, because the 6000+ has got twice as much L2 cache for each core. On the other hand, the 4800+ @ 2.4 GHz also has 2x1MB of L2 cache (the 2.5 GHz 4800+ is a Brisbane core with 2x512KB of L2), but it trails behind significantly. The 6000+ and 4800+ with 2MB L2 should produce similar frames-per-clock.
 
JimmiG said:
However, the results don't make perfect sense. If you look at the Minimun framerate, the 6000+ gets 24FPS which is faster than even the E8400 and second only to the QX6850, while the Phenom only gets 9 FPS. I think we can safely assume that the 6000+ is not 2.5x faster than the Phenom 9850.
Click to expand...
A single minimum framerate number is useless to judge performance. Just ignore it. A FRAPS line chart would show it best.

The F.E.A.R. timedemo benchmark does the simple display right by showing the percent of frames in several framerate ranges.
 
Thanks for posting the comparison. I am looking into upgrading and was looking for just this kind of info.
 
Nice info, consistent with prior articles on the subject. I'm lurking for upgrade info for the release of Fallout3.

I would have considered a Phenom as a drop-in upgrade but for my 'AM2 that is not an AM2' Biostar mobo. My only upgrade path is full cpu/mobo/ram replacement, and in that case, OC'ed e7200 wins in this price range. If the tri-cores were at least in the <100 dollar range it might be worth the extra power consumption/heat/noise of the AMD rig. Decent AMD boards still cost significantly less than Intel ones of similar quality, somewhat balancing the price difference.

I'd consider a newish BE Brisbane as an incremental upgrade, but I doubt the jump from 2.8 to 3.2-3.4 would be noticeable at 16x12 gaming. A $100 Kuma Phenom would be nice, but again, that means a new mobo.

What I'd like to see from AMD on the chipset front is universal support of Hybrid crossfire for all AMD discrete GPUs, not just the low-low end. Running off the IGP for regular use would be a major plus, and the 790 could add *something* to even my 3850.
 
makes me happy with my 6400+ BE at 3.45ghz :)

No need to upgrade anytime soon
 
Thanks for the post. I thought that a quad would've blown away a dual in gaming performance but didn't really see that much of a performance.
 
Ruiner said:
Nice info, consistent with prior articles on the subject. I'm lurking for upgrade info for the release of Fallout3.

I would have considered a Phenom as a drop-in upgrade but for my 'AM2 that is not an AM2' Biostar mobo. My only upgrade path is full cpu/mobo/ram replacement, and in that case, OC'ed e7200 wins in this price range. If the tri-cores were at least in the <100 dollar range it might be worth the extra power consumption/heat/noise of the AMD rig. Decent AMD boards still cost significantly less than Intel ones of similar quality, somewhat balancing the price difference.
.
Click to expand...

The top end ones are higher but there are good clocking budget boards now. On the really low budget end you can get one like this TG31-A7 for 50-60 bucks. Only good for 343 FSB until they fix the pcie lock in the bios though. For 80-100 you can get a value series P45 board. Has less power phases and only one pcie slot but still not bad. There are good Intel boards under 120 now though. All things considered though, an e7200 even with that crappy biostar board is still faster than what AMD can offer in that price range.
 
The 96X0 is abysmal, happier when I got a 5800+ (3ghz, half the cache of 6000), and then ADD happy after dumping my AMD set up entirely.
 
Ruiner said:
Nice info, consistent with prior articles on the subject. I'm lurking for upgrade info for the release of Fallout3.

I would have considered a Phenom as a drop-in upgrade but for my 'AM2 that is not an AM2' Biostar mobo. My only upgrade path is full cpu/mobo/ram replacement, and in that case, OC'ed e7200 wins in this price range. If the tri-cores were at least in the <100 dollar range it might be worth the extra power consumption/heat/noise of the AMD rig. Decent AMD boards still cost significantly less than Intel ones of similar quality, somewhat balancing the price difference.

I'd consider a newish BE Brisbane as an incremental upgrade, but I doubt the jump from 2.8 to 3.2-3.4 would be noticeable at 16x12 gaming. A $100 Kuma Phenom would be nice, but again, that means a new mobo.

What I'd like to see from AMD on the chipset front is universal support of Hybrid crossfire for all AMD discrete GPUs, not just the low-low end. Running off the IGP for regular use would be a major plus, and the 790 could add *something* to even my 3850.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want the on-board video to add anything to the discreet video. For me, heat is a factor. I once read that heat is the number one thing that degrades electronics over time. Besides, I read 790 is only like an overclocked 780 anyway. One of the reasons I chose 780 was to avoid the possibility of having more heat.

On a side note, I got a Coolermaster GeminiII S heatsink for the CPU and it has a 120mm fan that blows air towards the motherboard. I like it except for the fact I think it's the type of heatsink that you can't take off easily once it's on the CPU (because of the suction of the thermal grease and the fact you can't budge the heatsink because it's bolted at 4 different points).

There are rumors floating on the Internet that 2.8 and 3.0GHz Phenoms are coming in several months as well as the new Shanghai and Deneb cores. (They're apparently ahead of schedule this time and the GHz are apparently going to go up.)
 
I would once again like to thank you for the great post. I would also like to announce that I will be making a thread like this one to post the results from my switch between a FX-62 to a Phenom X4 9850. The problem currently is my GPU died on me just recently, so my test are delayed. I am also sorry to say that my test doesn't go into that many games for I couldn't find them :(. Although it will be a bit shallower, I can still show what might be a possibly huge jump from such an aging architecture to a new one. I will also try to show some other jumps from using different combination other than just game testing :). I will try to make up for the lack of game testing with the rest, so stay tuned ^^.

P.S. Sorry for stealing your post slightly, but it is you that influenced me to take the dive into the Phenom currently :p.

P.S.S. I probably have at least another week for my graphics to be returned to me :(.
 
790gx has the SB750 chipset. 780g has the SB700 chipset.

I am wanting a 9950, but not sure if my GB 780g mobo can handle that chip. I would want to OC it to around my current 5000BE at 3.0ghz.
 
Well, I was able to buy an AM2+/790FX board for cheap from the previous owner. Not the very latest, but a much newer chipset than the AMD690-based board I was using. This upgrade wasn't planned, and the CPU was working fine with my AM2 board, but since the opportunity arose to upgrade to a newer platform for cheap, I took the plunge anyway. The upgrade will almost repay itself when I upgrade to 4GB of RAM, since the new board has four memory slots instead of just two.

Here are some quick benchies at 2.5 GHz (benchmarks @ 2.5 GHz with the old board are towards the end of page 1 and for the 2.9 GHz X2 in the first post):

UT3: 98 FPS

Crysis CPU: 29.83 FPS
Crysis GPU: 30.66 FPS

3DMark 06: Total: 11410, SM2: 4446, SM3: 5246, CPU: 3432

3DMark Vantage: Total: P6836, GPU: 6477, CPU: 8202

It's a little faster across the board. Don't know what makes the biggest difference..PCI-E V2.0, HyperTransport 3.0 or just a slightly more efficient chipset overall. Probably all those things combined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top