Why is my Phenom II 810 slow?

[ardeegee]

Upgraded my X2 5050e with a Phenom II 810 last week. I overclocked it as high as I could without increasing the voltage or going with a 3rd party heat sink (which I'd rather not do) and have it running at 2.99 GHz. But at 3 GHz it is still benching lower than site reviews of the CPU at stock speed. Cinebench 10 is used in several reviews, so my stock speed results are:

Rendering (Single CPU): 2296 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 8403 CB-CPU

my results at 2.99 GHz are:

Rendering (Single CPU): 2671 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 9672 CB-CPU

But in this review:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...howdoc.aspx?i=3512&p=6

at 2.6 GHz the 810 gets 3011 and 11,133, better than my overclocked score

But then, in this review:

http://hothardware.com/Article...AM3-Processors/?page=7

at 2.6 GHz it is 2381 and 8527, almost the same as my 2.6 GHz score.

Any ideas on why there is such a difference between the scores in the reviews and my score? Could my older motherboard be causing that huge difference? (With the Anandtech review)? Or 32-bit vs. 64-bit? I'm running XP SP3, 32-bit and here are my CPUz numbers:

http://webpages.charter.net/garrison6328/cpuz_810.htm

 

[angry hampster]

Chipset and RAM are definitely part of it. Do those benches take GPU into consideration as well?

 

[richierich1212]

I can't really tell if they used DDR3 in the AMD test system in anand's review

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: ardeegee
But in this review:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...howdoc.aspx?i=3512&p=6

at 2.6 GHz the 810 gets 3011 and 11,133, better than my overclocked score

Anandtech's review was with an AM3 MSI DKA790GX Platinum mobo using DDR3 (DDR3-1066 4 x 1GB @7-7-7-20) and Vista 64 (except for sysmark which used Vista 32) and had a GeForce GTX 280 w/ForceWare 180.43 (Vista64)...and Intel X25-M SSD (80GB).

They use Cinebench R10.

Originally posted by: ardeegee
But then, in this review:

http://hothardware.com/Article...AM3-Processors/?page=7

at 2.6 GHz it is 2381 and 8527, almost the same as my 2.6 GHz score.

Any ideas on why there is such a difference between the scores in the reviews and my score? Could my older motherboard be causing that huge difference? (With the Anandtech review)? Or 32-bit vs. 64-bit? I'm running XP SP3, 32-bit and here are my CPUz numbers:

http://webpages.charter.net/garrison6328/cpuz_810.htm

They use the Asus M4A79T Deluxe mobo, 2x2GB DDR3-1600 underclocked to DDR3-1333 with 7,7,7,20 timings, GeForce GTX 280 w/Forceware v180.43...and WD150 "Raptor" HD.

They use Cinebench R10.

So if I had to make a wild guess, I would say for some reason Cinebench R10 appears to be significantly impacted by the read/write latency of the disk storage system...so much so that an Intel SSD enables an 810 rig to boost its R10 score some 20-25% over that of a VR equipped 810.

Would love to know if this is true, anyone out there with an Intel SSD that can run R10 bench with the SSD versus without the SSD?

 

[lopri]

Try multiple runs. Run it once, then close it, and run it again. The difference between each run could be up to 500~600 points. And 1000+ points difference between 32-bit and 64-bit is normal.

Before you do anything, however, a quick question: Is there an option to change NB voltage (not the chipset but the CPU-NB, or IMC) in BIOS? If not, take a look at this thread just in case.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=224029

 

[ardeegee]

Thanks for the comments so far, and sorry if this should go in the sticky-ed post about processor speeds (which I didn't notice until just now).

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I'd say it's a factor of all the things mentioned so far combined: Drive speed, DDR3 vs. your "slower" DDR2-800, motherboard chipset, and operating system.