Just upgraded from P9500 -> X9100

Well I"m pleasantly surprised at the performance I've gained with my X9100 ES CPU. As soon as I found it to boot, I bumped up the Multiplier to 13x, placing it at a great 3.5GHz. Vista is far more responsive, from boot times to application launching. The fans are quite a bit louder now, and battery life dropped about 20 minutes, but with some undervolting using RMClock, I have been able to get my battery life back. Also helps keep noise and temps down.

Crysis sees about 3-4fps better frame rate
Flight Simulator Acceleration sees about 6fps with everything maxed.
Unreal Tournament 3 sees about a 14fps increase

3DMark scores are about 2000 points higher
Vantage Scores went up about 200 points





Temps after a few hours of stressing hit 100C... just 5 under TJMax...

 

wow, you're pretty close to a 8800gtxsli combo

 

can i have you old p9500?

 

Lol I sold it to another user here

I'm trying to hit Sli results. I've got a ways to go, still though. What are the stock results for a pair of 8800M GTX cards?

 

Nice scores man

 

I really want an X9100, but the upcoming 35w T9800 @ 2.93Ghz has caused me to hesitate. I was going to risk the heat, but now it seems like I might as well wait for the slightly slower, cooler chip. It's not like I could overclock the X9 anyway, right?

A 2k jump in 3dmark06! Wow that's nice.

 

I thought the CPU would not be the bottleneck for games.

 

No, CPU still has quite an impact on games. Usually a route of information in a game goes from HDD -> Ram -> CPU -> GPU, so quite a bit is passed through the CPU before it goes to the GPU for processing. CPU also handles Physics, Sound, AI, and the non-graphicals parts of a game engine. Some games depend more on CPU than others.

 

Temps are really high, 100C... Is that normal?

 

NO! To me anything above 90 is too high!

 

I know what CPU does as a computing scientist. What I meant was that I thought P9500 is fast enough to be waiting for GPU to process the data. So, I was surprised by the fps increase in games.

Increase in 3Dmark is not surprising because it has tests that test the CPU only. When you test in the games, what resolution are u testing at?

 

Yikes. 3.5Ghz just might be more than your cooling solution can handle? Or you could try cleaning and reapplying thermal paste.

 

Are you using notebook cooler?

 

Yup, on the NC2000. I just put brand new thermal grease down, and cleaned the heatsinks from debris. I used Thermalright Chill Factor thermal grease. Manually spread. Could be the grease. I know Chill Factor has some pros and cons compared to AS5. Is there anything better than AS5?

Honestly, the Zalman NC-2000 does very little for me in terms of cooling.

 

I use IC Diamond 7, which was able to reduce my CPU temps by 5 degrees from the original AS5 application.

 

Mike, you and I have the same system, you undervolted the CPU
at 3.5GHz? I found the system kept the voltage the same from 3.06 thru 3.5 making 3.5 have issues for me. When you OC, is your system increasing the voltage?

 

The GPU can be bottlenecked by the CPU. The happy range for a G92 core is a ~3.6GHz Core 2, the happy range for a G80 was a 3.4GHz Conroe. Also, low resolution gaming is very CPU heavy versus hi def gaming - that is why stock 3DM06 scores aren't that great sometimes.

Check this review out:
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.p...ask=view&id=138&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=6

The Chill Factor you are using right now is very good paste. ICD7 is also good paste, but I would use it in a laptop - I wouldn't be comfortable putting it on a bare die, plus it needs a lot of pressure to work its best.

 

100C r you kidding ?!!
If it is true ur computer will not last long lol. This is 5 to 10 degres to much....
Nothing goes higher than 75C here...

 

95deg MAX and thats not long term at all...!!!! what are you using to measure temps?? many temp programs have issues with the 45nm chips.. try realtemp its about as accurate as it gets on 45nm

 

I was using both nVidia System Monitor and RM CLock to monitor temps. They have not gotten above 94C now. Might be that the thermal grease has had time to work in.

 

try real temp. it has the tjmax set right for 45nm chips. and lets you set each core to match, but tjmax for that chips is 95deg... so be careful

http://www.techpowerup.com/realtemp/

 

TJMax is 105C

http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/32012001.pdf

I"ll try realtemp thanks.

 

odd on the desktops its 95 NOT 105 that is wrong i even spoke with intel..

 

Mobile CPUs have a higher TJMAx than desktop CPUs, at least that I'm aware of. In all the documents and research I have done, the Penryn models all have a TJMax of 105C

OK were better. Temps maxing at 80C after a good 30 minutes of testing. Much better.