Last month, AMD became the first company to bring a $99 quad-core processor to market, the Athlon II X4 620. The question, of course, is whether or not it delivers. At 2.60GHz, it looks to offer ample performance, but the lack of an L3 cache is sure to be seen in some of our tests. Luckily, the chip’s overclocking-ability helps negate that issue.
At Techgage, we strive to make sure our results are as accurate as possible. Our testing is rigorous and time-consuming, but we feel the effort is worth it. In an attempt to leave no question unanswered, this page contains not only our testbed specifications, but also a fully-detailed look at how we conduct our testing. For an exhaustive look at our methodologies, even down to the Windows Vista installation, please refer to this article.
The below table lists our testing machine’s hardware, which remains unchanged throughout all GPU testing, minus the graphics card. Each card used for comparison is also listed here, along with the driver version used. Each one of the URLs in this table can be clicked to view the respective review of that product, or if a review doesn’t exist, it will bring you to the product on the manufacturer’s website.
Please note that for the particular CPU we’re looking at today, we’re not using the below-listed Gigabyte AM3 board, but rather the ASUS M4A785TD-M EVO. This was at AMD’s request, as this 785G mATX board is a perfect match for the new budget quad-core. It currently retails for $95, and is very feature-rich, so I can’t disagree.
|
Component
|
AMD AM2+/AM3 Test System
|
| Processors |
AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition – Quad-Core, 3.40GHz, 1.325v AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition – Quad-Core, 3.20GHz, 1.325v AMD Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition – Tri-Core, 2.80GHz, 1.325v AMD Athlon II X4 620 – Quad-Core, 2.60GHz, 1.375v |
| Motherboard |
Gigabyte MA790GP-DS4H – 790GX-based, F3 BIOS (01/13/09)
|
| Memory |
Corsair XMS3 DHX 2x2GB – DDR2-1066 5-5-5-15-2T, 2.10v |
| Graphics |
Palit Radeon HD 4870 512MB (Catalyst 8.11)
|
| Audio |
On-Board Audio
|
| Storage | |
| Power Supply | |
| Chassis | |
| Display | |
| Cooling | |
| Et cetera |
|
Component
|
Intel LGA1156 Test System
|
| Processors | Intel Core i7-870 – Quad-Core, 2.93GHz, ~1.25v Intel Core i5-750 – Quad-Core, 2.66GHz, ~1.25v |
| Motherboard |
Gigabyte P55-UD5 – P55-based, F3 BIOS (08/01/09)
|
| Memory |
Corsair XMS3 DHX 2x2GB – DDR3-1333 7-7-7-20-2T, 1.65v |
| Graphics |
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB (Catalyst 8.11)
|
| Audio |
On-Board Audio
|
| Storage | |
| Power Supply | |
| Chassis | |
| Display | |
| Cooling |
Thermalright MUX-120
|
| Et cetera |
|
Component
|
Intel LGA1366 Test System
|
| Processors |
Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition – Quad-Core, 3.33GHz, 1.30v
Intel Core i7-920 – Quad-Core, 2.66GHz, 1.30v |
| Motherboard |
ASUS Rampage II Extreme – X58-based, 0705 BIOS (11/21/08)
|
| Memory |
OCZ Gold 3x2GB – DDR3-1066 7-7-7-20-1T, 1.56v (920/940) OCZ Gold 3x2GB – DDR3-1600 7-7-7-20-1T, 1.56v (965) |
| Graphics |
Palit Radeon HD 4870 512MB (Catalyst 8.11)
|
| Audio |
On-Board Audio
|
| Storage | |
| Power Supply | |
| Chassis | |
| Display | |
| Cooling | |
| Et cetera |
|
Component
|
Intel LGA775
|
| Processors |
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 – Quad-Core, 3.00GHz, 1.30v (Sim) Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 – Quad-Core, 2.83GHz, 1.30v (Sim) Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 – Quad-Core, 2.66GHz, 1.30v Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 – Quad-Core, 2.33GHz, 1.30v Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 – Dual-Core, 3.33GHz, 1.30v Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 – Dual-Core, 3.16GHz, 1.30v (Sim) Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 – Dual-Core, 3.00GHz, 1.30v Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5200 – Dual-Core 2.50GHz, 1.30v |
| Motherboard |
ASUS Rampage Extreme – X48-based, 0501 BIOS (08/28/08)
|
| Memory |
Corsair XMS3 DHX 2x2GB – DDR3-1333 7-7-7-15-1T, 1.91v (1333FSB) Corsair XMS3 DHX 2x2GB – DDR3-1066 6-6-6-15-1T, 1.91v (1066FSB) Corsair XMS3 DHX 2x2GB – DDR3-800 6-6-6-15-1T, 1.91v (800FSB) |
| Graphics |
Palit Radeon HD 4870 512MB (Catalyst 8.11)
|
| Audio |
On-Board Audio
|
| Storage | |
| Power Supply | |
| Chassis | |
| Display | |
| Cooling | |
| Et cetera |
(Sim) represents models that were tested using a faster, but under-clocked processor. For example, for the Q9550, we used the QX9770, since the specs are identical all-around, except for the clock speeds. Those were adjusted appropriately, effectively giving us a Q9550 to test with.
When preparing our testbeds for any type of performance testing, we follow these guidelines:
To aide with the goal of keeping accurate and repeatable results, we alter certain services in Windows Vista from starting up at boot. This is due to the fact that these services have the tendency to start up in the background without notice, potentially causing slightly inaccurate results. Disabling “Windows Search” turns off the OS’ indexing which can at times utilize the hard drive and memory more than we’d like.
To help test out the real performance benefits of a given processor, we run a large collection of both real-world and synthetic benchmarks, including 3ds Max, Adobe Lightroom, TMPGEnc Xpress, Sandra 2009 and many more.
Our ultimate goal is always to find out which processor excels in a given scenario and why. Running all of the applications in our carefully-chosen suite can help better give us answers to those questions. Aside from application data, we also run two common games to see how performance scales there, including Call of Duty 4 and Half-Life 2: Episode Two.
In an attempt to offer “real-world” results, we do not utilize timedemos in any of our reviews. Each game in our test suite is benchmarked manually, with the minimum and average frames-per-second (FPS) captured with the help of FRAPS 2.9.5.
To deliver the best overall results, each title we use is exhaustively explored in order to find the best possible level in terms of intensiveness and replayability. Once a level is chosen, we play through repeatedly to find the best possible route and then in our official benchmarking, we stick to that route as close as possible. Since we are not robots and the game can throw in minor twists with each run, no run can be identical to the pixel.
Each game and setting combination is tested twice, and if there is a discrepancy between the initial results, the testing is repeated until we see results we are confident with.
The two games we currently use for our motherboard reviews are listed below, with direct screenshots of the game’s setting screens and explanations of why we chose what we did.
|
1680×1050
|
2560×1600
|
|
1680×1050
|
2560×1600
|
|
1680×1050
|
2560×1600
|