Skip to main content

The World's First 65 W Desktop Quad Core

Test Setup and Utilized Components

Operating system: Windows Vista Enterprise

All benchmarks are conducted under Windows Vista Enterprise.

Hardware Configuration

To provide an up-to-date, realistic test platform, we upgraded all of our hardware components, including the graphics adapter, the sound card, and the hard disks.

Deployed Hardware

AMD Platform AM2+ (AMD 790FX)MSI K9A PLatinum (Rev.1.0) AMD 790FX, BIOS: 1.3
Intel Platform S775 (Intel P35)Gigabyte P35C-DS3R, Rev. 1.0 Intel P35, BIOS: F2o (05/11/2007)
Intel Platform S775 (Intel X38)Gigabyte GA-X38-DQ6, Rev. 1.0 Intel X38, BIOS: F4 (09/19/2007)
Memory2x 1GB A-Data DDR2-1066+ Vitesta Extreme Edition
DVD-ROMSamsung SH-D163A , SATA150
Graphics CardFoxconn Nvidia Geforce 8800 GTX
GPU575 MHz
Shader1350 MHz
Memory786 MB DDR4 (900 MHz, 384 Bit)
Sound CardCreative Labs Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer
Power SupplyEnermax EGA1000EWL ATX 2.2, 1000 W

Operating SystemWindows Vista Enterprise Version 6.0 (Build 6000)
DirectX 10DirectX 10 (Vista default)
DirectX 9Version: April 2007
Sound CardVista Driver 2.13.0012 (15.03.2007)
Graphics CardNvidia ForceWare Version 158.18 (32 Bit) WHQL
X38-Chipset DriverVersion 8.1.1.1010 (21/11/2006)
Intel StorageMatrix-Storage Manager 7.0.0.1020
790FX-Chipset DriverAMD/ATI System Drivers 8.40 2007/11/09
JavaJava Runtime Environment 6.0 Update 1

_98184

  • xx12amanxx
    VERY INTERESTING...
    Reply
  • custommadename
    People can still play games with this quad core. Sure, it's not as fast as a quad core from Intel, but it's evidently more than suitable to handle today's games. However, for about $200 it's a horrible value.
    Reply
  • Just a quick question... at 1.8GHz is this chip even competitive with a higher speed dual core (even when considering 4 core vs 2 and considering multi-core optimized applications)?

    It'd be interesting to add in a Intel mid to high range dual core and look at the power consumption and performance vs the relatively low clocked quad. Dropping the clockspeed so low would seem to give back most of the games from having 2 extra cores (and would be worse for SW that cannot use 4 cores).
    Reply
  • JSP78
    Im an Q9450 owner and to just drop the multipler on the QX9770 and use the same vid isent fair.
    My Q9450 VID = 1.1v, EIST drops VID to 1.0375v
    C1 stepping, slawr l806a762
    I bet thats gonna make it hard for the phenom to beat
    Reply
  • thuan
    Page 12 title is wrong. It's 9.8% not 8.8%. Just mention it, as it seems no one's noticed it yet.
    Reply
  • royalcrown
    This just goes to show how crappy "Barceloney" really is.

    Consider the fact that one can buy an e8400 or 8500 which uses the same power, can keep up with AMD's quad cores (even when they are over clocked), and also DESTROY this thing at gaming. WHY exactly would I buy this piece of crap again Frank ?!?!

    I guess if I ran Cinebench benchmarks all day and did NOTHING else, then this cpu would look good.

    People that buy quad cores are not going to care about 35 watts, they want to brag about speed OR get their work done ASAP, and AMD is crap for that right now !
    Reply
  • Reynod
    An excellent review Frank ... well done.

    Very impartial ... showing the strength's and weaknesses of the low power unit.

    The overclocking limit of 2.4 would be interesting to explore further.

    Can you elaborate on what settings you went to ... and the HTT frequency please?

    Cheers,
    Reply
  • Reynod
    An excellent review Frank ... well done.

    Very impartial ... showing the strength's and weaknesses of the low power unit.

    The overclocking limit of 2.4 would be interesting to explore further.

    Can you elaborate on what settings you went to ... and the HTT frequency please?

    Cheers,
    Reply
  • OMA
    Why did you underclock the l3 cache and memory controller? The ht link is ment to be overclocked, not underclocked! L3 runs the same speed as ht link not 2,4 ghz. Slow L3 is a big bottleneck in games.
    Reply
  • skittle
    comparing power consumption of a 1.8ghz phenom with a stock q6600 and touting the phenom as the power consumption king is a very inaccurate conclusion. The articles here just keep getting worse and worse... seriously who hires these clowns?
    Reply