Skip to main content

The World's First 65 W Desktop Quad Core

CPU Power Loss: Overclocking to 2.40 GHz

To establish an improved basis for making a comparison, we overclocked the Phenom X4 9100e to 2.40 GHz and compared it with the Phenom X4 9750, whose standard clock rate is 2.40 GHz.

phenom x4 9100e

Under full load, Phenom X4 9100e consumes a respectable 38.55 W less than Phenom X4 9750, though both CPUs provide the same computing performance.

phenom x4 9100e

When the CPUs are not under load at 2.40 GHz, the Phenom 9100e gets by on much less power, while the Phenom X4 9750 needs about 11 W more.

  • 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