Cool & Quiet overhead on performance?

Hi all,
I'm wondering if there is a consensus out there about AMD's cool & quiet and what sort of hit it takes on performance. I ask this because I'd originally heard there was no hit, but in real-world testing I found not only was there a hit, but it was sizeable.

I just had a hunch that my machine was slower after enabling c&q, so I created a quick test where I rendered 20 raw files into jpegs using Bibble. It took 80 seconds with cool & quiet enabled, and--with no other clocking changes--it took 70 seconds without it. I went back and forth and repeated it several times to verify it wasn't a fluke.

That's a huge hit to me, I'm wondering if this is a known issue just to avoid c&q if you want the max out of the box.
--Jim

I found that on my dads quad core a single thread won't kick it out of CnQ in XP, it only reads as 25% load.

I noticed a big drop in system responsiveness in my system when I had CnQ enabled.

Enabling CnQ (or any power-saving feature on any CPU) will always have a performance hit. There's nothing new about that and doubt it will change anytime soon. I don't know where you heard that bit of nonsense but that's all it is - nonsense ...

I never noticed any difference in performance with either the BIOS/windows cnq enabled, or setting up manual cnq p-states with the phenommsrtweaker.

But with a quad core PhII, even clocked down at 800-1000mhz I can still run windows/browser/torrent/music and windows desktop with little ill effects.

If it bothers you dont use it, I like having a bit of savings on my electric bill though, and less heat in the florida summer