Testing Methodology
Testing Methodology<o
></o>
<o
></o
>
All tests were run using patched games (including a nearly 2GB patch for Company of Heroes….), and a fully-updated install of Microsoft Windows Vista x64. 64-bit and DirectX 10 versions of each test were used wherever possible.
All games were run at 1280x1024 with settings at “high” or “DX10” wherever available, except Crysis, which used “medium” settings.
<o
></o
>
The following tests were run for this preview:
<o
></o
>
Synthetics
3Dmark 2006
SiSoft Sandra Arithmetic
SiSoft Sandra Memory Bandwidth
SiSoft Sandra Memory Latency
Super Pi 1M
Cinebench 1CPU
Cinebench xCPU
Lightsmark
Valve Software Particle benchmark
PC Mark Vantage
<o
></o
>
Games
Call of <st1
lace>Juarez</st1
lace> DX10
F.E.A.R. in-game benchmark
Supreme Commander “ /perf” test
Crysis 64-bit CPU benchmark
Crysis 64-bit GPU benchmark
Company of Heroes in-game benchmark
Half Life 2 Lost Coast in-game benchmark
Lost Planet Extreme Condition DX10
Counter Strike Source in-game benchmark
<o
></o
>
our test beds in all of their glory - The green sleeving on the PSU is aftermarket and contrary to what I thought when I was putting it there, it did not make the PC go faster. Along those lines, it also did not affect performance...
What Steps Have Been Taken to Ensure Accuracy?<o></o>
<o></o>
As you’ll see below, some of the scores are disappointingly low, particularly the memory bandwidth and latency as measured by Sandra. This caused us to think that there may be something wrong with our Phenom because traditionally K8 scored very well on these tests due to its on-board memory controller.
<o
></o
>
That said, it’s hard to believe there’s something critically wrong with a CPU that completed this entire testing routine (twice with averaging rather than 3x due to time constraints) without any crashing or other issues.
<o
></o
>
I’m sure if there’s a problem with our chip AMD will get in touch with us and let us know how we can correct the results, so PLEASE stay tuned for updates. This is a preview, not a review, so things could definitely change.
<o
></o
>
We’ve eliminated the motherboard and the memory as weak points by trying 3 boards (2 separate Gigabyte MA790FX-DQ6, and one MSI 790X board), and 3 separate memory kits from 3 different vendors. None of these changes affected our results dramatically.
<o
></o
>
<o
></o
>
We were also able to get our memory working in dual channel mode (as read by both the BIOS and by the new AMD Overdrive utility) by using the "ganged" setting. It boosted benchmark scores in some cases by about 5-10%.
Test Systems<o></o>
<o
></o
>
Due to the time limits in place for this preview(our sample showed up Friday), we did not have the luxury of running all of the tests on one platform, reformatting the hard drive, then running all of the tests on the other platform. Instead we built two full test beds, one for a Q6600, and one for the Phenom 9600. The configurations are as follows:
<o
></o
>
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
Gigabyte X38-DQ6 (no BIOS update required for stability at these settings)
Crucial Ballistix Tracer PC2-8500 @ 1066 5-5-5-18 2T 2.1V (everything else auto)
ATi Radeon 3850 256MB (out of the box drivers)
Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 500GB SATA2
OCZ GameXStream 600W
Generic DVD-ROM
<o
></o
>
AMD Phenom X4 9600
Gigabyte MA790FX-DQ6 (BIOS updated to BETA F2i for stability at DDR2-1066)
Crucial Ballistix Tracer PC2-8500 @ 1066 5-5-5-18 2T 2.1V *Using "ganged" memory mode shows 128-bit bus in the BIOS and in AMD Overdrive, and gave better benchmark scores for gaming tests, so we used it*
ATi Radeon 3850 256MB (out of the box drivers)
Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 500GB SATA2
OCZ GameXStream 600W
Generic DVD-ROM
<o
></o
>
<o
></o
><o
></o
>
