Still think single core is better for gaming? check this out FX57 vx Opty 180!

[Major]

Not to start an argument or anything ! lol

I'm not into benching anymore, so never really run 3dmark other than to test for stablilty.
Today I ran 3dmark05 with my Opteron 180 (see sig for complete rig) to test for gaming stablity with my new G.Skill HZ 2x1gig.

Anyway to make a short story even shorter,
I've seen alot of peeps talking about why AMD is going to dual core with the FX60.
Maybe this will shed some light on it !

Check these results out, both were done on the same rig.

FX57 @ 3.4ghz
vs
Opteron 180 DC @ 3.1ghz.

The only hardware difference between them was that the 7800GTX SLI were overclocked on the FX57 run.
They are stock speed now and air cooled with my Opteron.
So the advantage was with the FX57 as far as the video cards were concerned.
And I'm pretty sure I was using Crucial Ballistix 2x1gig on the FX57,
once again the advantage with ram timmings went to the FX57.

So with the video cards clocked higher, better timings on the ram, and 300mhz more OC
you would think the FX57 would eat the Opteron DC alive....right ?


http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=41167&stc=1&d=1134610961


http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=41168&stc=1&d=1134610961


http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=41169&stc=1&d=1134610961

[Rayman]

not the same drivers?

[Major]

the benchmarks were run several months apart and I always use the latest dirvers so they the latest at the time the benchmark was run.

My 7800gtx's are not water cooled anymore, I'd love to OC them to the same level and do a camparison then, cause I have a feeling the Opteron would come real close to 16k

[Vincentvega18]

I think the new drivers give better results from dual core, so yes for nvidia now clock for clock dual core owns single core. Now we just have to wait for fully multi threaded games to see the real differences.

[Kunaak]

I had much the same experience.
my dual core benchmarks at 3.1 ghz, destroyed my 3.3 ghz benchmarks in
3dmark2005. I went from 15,450 single core at 3.3 ghz, to 16,180 with a dual core CPU at only 3.1 ghz in 3dmark2005.

[Major]

check this post out, exactly the same rig all I did was install my 4400+

same drivers, same everything in fact the SD 3700+ was running over 50mhz more clock.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=997641&postcount=819

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=41180&stc=1&d=1134614030

[HeavyH20]

FX57 @ 3.4ghz
vs
Opteron 180 DC @ 3.1ghz.


Dual core will equal single core if it is 400 Mhz less than single core. Your delta is better at 300 MHz so you will see a gain over the single core. But, most dual cores do not exceed 3 Ghz while I have seen a ton of 3.4 Ghz FX-57's. That is why the choice of most benchers is still the single core FX-57. I think, however, the FX-60 may open some new doors.

BTW, 3.1 GHz on a dual core is a great OC.

[Major]

I had much the same experience.
my dual core benchmarks at 3.1 ghz, destroyed my 3.3 ghz benchmarks in
3dmark2005. I went from 15,450 single core at 3.3 ghz, to 16,180 with a dual core CPU at only 3.1 ghz in 3dmark2005.

Thats about right I'd say ;)

[s7e9h3n]

But what happens if the FX60 has a cold bug and the FX57 doesn't? Then how do you think the results will scale? ;)

[Dumo]

Then we have to compare both on air/water cooling:)

[Vapor]

Or test the 5000+ vs the FX-57 :idea:

[Major]

But what happens if the FX60 has a cold bug and the FX57 doesn't? Then how do you think the results will scale? ;)

good point, but even at STOCK speeds the FX60 will eat the FX57 :D

[Dumo]

Not @ 2.6G compare to 2.8G:)

[Dumo]

Heres...

FX60..:slobber:

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/3996/0070bp.jpg

FX55claw..:)

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/965/screenshot0536kg.jpg

Major, try it with same setting...http://crystalmark.info/?lang=en

[IvanAndreevich]

Dumo
Who cares about synthetic stuff like that, though? Obviously dual core can really shine here. In 3D, though that's a different story (up till now) :)

Personally, I tested Venice @ 2.8 GHz vs Manchester @ 2.7 GHz in 3DMark2001. Dual core was 2K faster with same everything else, or something along those lines

Edit confused the CPU I tested dual core against

[Major]

Major, try it with same setting...http://crystalmark.info/?lang=en


Dumo, are you wanting me to run crystalmark with my Opteron 180 at 2970mhz ?