Crysis CPU benchmark: QX6850 VS QX9650 VS PhenomX4

Thanks to the built-in CPU/GPU branchmark system of Crysis, we can easily finish CPU/GPU branchmark on this game. The GPU branchmark will finish today,before that let's have some branchmark score of CPUs:QX6850,QX9650,Phenom X4.

For more balance, Phenom X4 is already OC to 3GHz(15x200MHz) .Because the built-in Memory controller of Phenom have some auto setting funtion, so the memory frenquency is set to 375MHz automatically.

The mobos we are using: AMD's RD790 and Intel's P35. All the settings(including the game)are all default. Graphis card is 8800GTX, the driver is the newest 169.01. All the tests are running in XP. Do you guys still remember the date that the two new CPU become available?

Intel QX9650：Nov 12, 2007
AMD Phenom X4：Nov 20,2007

http://www.expreview.com/img/news/071028/score.png

http://news.expreview.com/2007-10-29...0532d6599.html

Common AMD!

Wow...AMD still lagging behind........

Thanks for the quick tests, cookerjc

You're always supplying us with the new reviews - keep up the good work

However, the results are not very surprising :rofl:

Disappointing performance by AMD.

Note that cache and DIV/SQRT/SHUF seem to have no effect in Farcry. The only thing I can think of is branch prediction

lol Intel>AMD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kcnyc

Wow...AMD still lagging behind........

---

Hard to believe? :rofl:

alot of tears will be shed in this thread, i can tell :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowmage

Disappointing performance by AMD.

Note that cache and DIV/SQRT/SHUF seem to have no effect in Farcry. The only thing I can think of is branch prediction

---

Quad core also has almost no effect....

Definitely an atypical app in many ways it seems.

IF this is true toward other applications AMD will be no more for sure.

This is disappointing for AMD but it isn't the end of the world lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by `danny

This is disappointing for AMD but it isn't the end of the world lol

---

Well lets see, only if you think 2012 is a long time to come.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by `danny

This is disappointing for AMD but it isn't the end of the world lol

---

QFT

No :banana::banana::banana::banana:.

Everyone is freaking out. "AMD IS DEAD FOR SURE!"
haha

We're talking about a difference of maybe 5%

Everyone needs to calm down. If you sat down in front of AMD computer, and then Intel computer... You would NEVER notice 5% difference to play the game.

AMD is just a little behind. if they use some marketing tatic i still think Phenom X4 will become many mainsteam ppl's choice(of coz not you xtreme guy's choice...)

Um, have you checked out AMD's marketing crew lately?

amd has the preliminary prices to have 2x phenom 4x4 v 1 intel so well find out the real truth soon

sure AMD is behind but if the price is right, most won't really care if they can get a quad for cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xVeinx

Um, have you checked out AMD's marketing crew lately?

---

Precisely. Even when Intel was taking it up the rear from K8 they still had a better marketing department. Remember all those Blue Man Group commercials from Intel? What did AMD have? How about now? Intel knows how to sell hardware and while everyone may say "ohh, AMD sells to top tier OEMs before the consumer" you need to remember that it's the consumer that makes the end choice on which PC they buy. I still have idiots ask me if they should get a PC with a Pentium 4 in it or a Core 2 Duo. That my friends is successful marketing

well it's disapointing to see the X4 lagging behind. i had hoped that AMD could at least equal intel after what? 1.5 years? it seems to me like another R600.

but i have been wondering were do you find these demos?
i would like to run them but i can;t find them. can some one let me know.

What stepping is the Phenom? Rumour is that B2 gives it a nice speed boost.

Otherwise, god dammit! I wanted a Phenom, but it looks like I won't get one...

edit: Well the difference is marginal at best...

the demo isnt optimized for quad core (or not well enough) ... not much difference between dual and quads ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cookerjc

AMD Phenom X4:Nov 20,2007

---

you're wrong. Actually quad-core AMD desktop cpu is called Phenom 9000 series. rtfm ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cookerjc

AMD is just a little behind. if they use some marketing tatic i still think Phenom X4 will become many mainsteam ppl's choice(of coz not you xtreme guy's choice...)

---

Exactly. Who here is going to run a Yorkfield at 3GHz?

your right, they would probably go for 4GZ...

Quote:

---

you're wrong. Actually quad-core AMD desktop cpu is called Phenom 9000 series. rtfm

---

how about an even more fitting name: phenom underperforming series ;) sometimes, i wish this site had a option to list who you're responding to so i don't have to go back and edit my posts with quotes...

HT link at 1600? either CPU-z doesnt detect it right or thats not a Phenom CPU. Do AMD ES CPUs actually have a unlocked multi? Seems strange to me that they would

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR

HT link at 1600? either CPU-z doesnt detect it right or thats not a Phenom CPU. Do AMD ES CPUs actually have a unlocked multi? Seems strange to me that they would

---

Yeah something is wrong with the HT link...

what are the prices for each of those, eh?

it's too bad phenom doesnt even match conroe...

i was expection york to beat amd, but i didnt expect conroe too....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

Yeah something is wrong with the HT link...

---

The memory as well; 5-5-7-18-22-2T is really bad. Cheapo DDR2 can do a lot better than that not to mention Phenom has 1066 mem clock support

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR

The memory as well; 5-5-7-18-22-2T is really bad. Cheapo DDR2 can do a lot better than that not to mention Phenom has 1066 mem clock support

---

I'm not calling the FUD alert. Someone else can :yepp:

*coughs* Two CPU-Z 1.41 screens with Phenom.
http://www.matbe.com/images/biblio/d...0000061446.jpg

http://www.ocworkbench.com/2007/amd/...4-on-RD790.jpg

edit: WTF those CPU-Z not reporting HT Link and the one for the Crysis bench is?

I understand why you would even the processor speed for this benchmark, but unless something has changed further, AMD's clock speeds do not mimic Intel. They revamped them a few years ago using a different algorithm, atleast to my knowledge.

looks better than i thought

which one will be cooler Phenom or Intel? (power consumption figures)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicksterr

I understand why you would even the processor speed for this benchmark, but unless something has changed further, AMD's clock speeds do not mimic Intel. They revamped them a few years ago using a different algorithm, atleast to my knowledge.

---

AMD will go down the same way P4 said goodbye to us not too long ago. I sure will not miss them. I mean wtf were they thinking? :shrug:

It is obvious by now that barcelona or phenom only received an update based on the same architecture. But of course this plan got cursed the day intel spoke to god and told them he got a new son called conroe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dinos22

looks better than i thought

which one will be cooler Phenom or Intel? (power consumption figures)

---

Stop being sarcastic. I dont like it when im crying. :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedBull78

Stop being sarcastic. I dont like it when im crying. :rofl:

---

lol i'm serious here :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dinos22

lol i'm serious here :shrug:

---

lol Yeahh sure and I was just born yesterday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedBull78

AMD will go down the same way P4 said goodbye to us not too long ago. I sure will not miss them. I mean wtf were they thinking? :shrug:

It is obvious by now that barcelona or phenom only received an update based on the same architecture. But of course this plan got cursed the day intel spoke to god and told them he got a new son called conroe.

---

as ridiculous as you sound, you got some sense in your posts in that barcelona performs like a slightly tweaked k8. what it seems happened, is that amd had to scrap their k8 replacement around 2005, then went "we need something to offset core", and did not expect the desktop version of core to be so devastating to k8... not only did they underestimate conroe, they also completely failed at releasing it in a timely manner. what i love, is that even nn_step has pretty much all but given up on spreading amd fud...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedBull78

lol Yeahh sure and I was just born yesterday.

---

scratches head
gotta google search myself i guess

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dinos22

scratches head
gotta google search myself i guess

---

Who said you have a self?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedBull78

Who said you have a self?

---

damn it are you trying to increase your postcount today or something lol :p:
you know what i mean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dinos22

damn it are you trying to increase your postcount today or something lol :p:
you know what i mean

---

The last time I tried that I got banned.

Holy cow : look at K10's voltage !

1.536V is simply huge , that's an indication of serious problems.Remember the nice chat on AMD's 65nm process ?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...4&postcount=57
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=49

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Holy cow : look at K10's voltage !

1.536V is simply huge , that's an indication of serious problems.Remember the nice chat on AMD's 65nm process ?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...4&postcount=57
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=49

---

Something just doesn't seem right about that Phenom...

Wait a min, what about the NDA thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Holy cow : look at K10's voltage !

1.536V is simply huge , that's an indication of serious problems.Remember the nice chat on AMD's 65nm process ?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...4&postcount=57
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=49

---

That's bad but something I expected. Thats a B2 step core as well there and thats about the same voltage it takes an ES QX9650 to do 4.7GHz IIRC.

As voltage increases, power increases quickly and the electrical resistance will also increase along with it so you get less MHz the higher V you give (low resistance junctions and interconnects are worst affected) and high TDP. Theres only two ways to take for CPU design when it comes to metal gate AFAIK and ones for high performance/high TDP and the other is for low TDP/v.low standby TDP preference. Intel chose the high-k dielectric metal gate which means you get maximum clock speeds (makes for easy PR work too) and not much TDP advantage over what the basic node offers and AMD AFAIK chose low-k dielectric along with IBM, which is not made for high clocks at all but low power usage. SOI and other straining techniques combined can do better than having a metal gate BTW. Then again I read AMD chose to go for high-k dielectric metal gate at 32nm, so I'm not sure what they're doing for 45nm or 32nm anymore. You can read more accurate info here: http://www.semiconductor.net/article/CA6402509.html

Around 1.5V is about the max possible a CPU MFG wants to retail at, and usually never above 1.4V nowadays. I wonder what the TDP is. Intel breaks the 130W barrier after 3GHz on Penryn at 1.216-1.248V, so what would 1.536V 3GHz quad get? Must be high but they're planning to retail 2.8GHz this year, so we'll see what they have to offer then.

That's not too bad clock for clock, but even the Q6600 can hit more than 3ghz, so I really hope the Phenom X4 will at least hit 3.5+ ghz. Otherwise the difference in performance will be huge (20-30% after oc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR

HT link at 1600? either CPU-z doesnt detect it right or thats not a Phenom CPU.

---

Phenom B2 have max HT multiplier of 8... What he did to achive 3GHz was by setting the multiplier up to 15... HT Multiplier still at 8

so HT Link : 200MHz x 8 = 1600MHz
CPU speed : 200MHz x 15 = 3000MHz

NB speed should be arround 1.6GHz on that setup as well ..... :shrug:
Dual Channel with ganged mode ..... :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR

Do AMD ES CPUs actually have a unlocked multi? Seems strange to me that they would

---

AFAIK.. it is unlock on ES.... If the bios didnt support it.. there is AMD Overdrive tool that will allow changging the multiplier for each core and HT multiplier....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

I'm not calling the FUD alert. Someone else can :yepp:

*coughs* Two CPU-Z 1.41 screens with Phenom.
http://www.matbe.com/images/biblio/d...0000061446.jpg

http://www.ocworkbench.com/2007/amd/...4-on-RD790.jpg

edit: WTF those CPU-Z not reporting HT Link and the one for the Crysis bench is?

---

That 2 screenshot are running CPU-Z Version 1.41.0 with B0 Stepping

CPU-Z Version 1.41 does detect HT Link correctly for Phenom B2 Stepping :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

Intel breaks the 130W barrier after 3GHz on Penryn at 1.216-1.248V, so what would 1.536V 3GHz quad get? Must be high but they're planning to retail 2.8GHz this year, so we'll see what they have to offer then.

---

I thought the 3.2hz @136W or whatever was just a rumour, and the 2.8ghz K10 in 2007 too. AMD stated "up to 2.5ghz" for Barc and Phenom @2.6 imho.

Anyway nice to see a Barc finally reach 3.0 ghz again...

It's funny ho wthey wanne compare while they fail to do it.

they know the system had problems in running 400mhz memclock yet they go ahead giving the intel system the advantage. what about those mem timings lol at tras.
Ht speed?


You could also conclude that penryn is a rushed out product and not needed afterall. Look how it's own dual core keeps up with ease.

lol 45nm , what woudl amd do without it :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

Intel breaks the 130W barrier after 3GHz on Penryn at 1.216-1.248V, so what would 1.536V 3GHz quad get? Must be high but they're planning to retail 2.8GHz this year, so we'll see what they have to offer then.

---

No, 3Ghz Yorkfield Xeons are 80W or less.

I'm eager to see AMD fans spin this one. :)

nn_step / informal, time to step up and be counted! LOL ;) ;) j/k

On a serious note, these results are disappointing from many angles.

OK, so Phenom performance is obviously sub par, but what about Penryn? And QC? Hardly no gains over C2D at all! Is it true that the Crysis SP demo is not multithreaded? It better be, otherwise all this talk of 'QC is needed for Crysis' is just total BS!

I guess the 'good' news is that Phenom is capable of overlclocking to 3GHz on the B2 stepping... but it doesn't do much good when C2D/C2Q is superior clock for clock and clocking to 4GHz+ (in the case of Penryn) or 3.5GHz+ with current 65nm Conroes/Kentsfields.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dinos22

scratches head
gotta google search myself i guess

---

Dino.....thats sounds Kinky:D what prey tell are you boys doing over there in OZ:p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KTE

That's bad but something I expected. Thats a B2 step core as well there and thats about the same voltage it takes an ES QX9650 to do 4.7GHz IIRC.

As voltage increases, power increases quickly and the electrical resistance will also increase along with it so you get less MHz the higher V you give (low resistance junctions and interconnects are worst affected) and high TDP.

---

Power consumption increases with the square of V.

Quote:

---

Theres only two ways to take for CPU design when it comes to metal gate AFAIK and ones for high performance/high TDP and the other is for low TDP/v.low standby TDP preference. Intel chose the high-k dielectric metal gate which means you get maximum clock speeds (makes for easy PR work too) and not much TDP advantage over what the basic node offers

---

Intel's 45nm offers both : high frequency and low power

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13470/15

What should be noted is : process improvements offer lower power consumption at the same freq or higher freq at the same power.

Metal gates drastically reduce the biggest factor in leakage once you go under 65nm.

Quote:

---

and AMD AFAIK chose low-k dielectric along with IBM, which is not made for high clocks at all but low power usage. SOI and other straining techniques combined can do better than having a metal gate BTW.

---

That's utter BS.SOI and metal gates address different factors of leakage , SOI is becoming less useful once you get to 65nm and lower.

The fact that SOI doesn't adress gate leakage , the biggest problem at 65/45/32nm means that AMD had to use thicker gates which equal slower transistors.

Quote:

---

Then again I read AMD chose to go for high-k dielectric metal gate at 32nm, so I'm not sure what they're doing for 45nm or 32nm anymore. You can read more accurate info here: http://www.semiconductor.net/article/CA6402509.html

---

So basically , you say something and then deny it ?

Quote:

---

Around 1.5V is about the max possible a CPU MFG wants to retail at, and usually never above 1.4V nowadays. I wonder what the TDP is. Intel breaks the 130W barrier after 3GHz on Penryn at 1.216-1.248V, so what would 1.536V 3GHz quad get? Must be high but they're planning to retail 2.8GHz this year, so we'll see what they have to offer then.

---

Huh ? Where do you get this info ?

1.5V is huge for a 65nm process ; 90nm used 1.35-1.4V.

Can someone show load graph on the cores while timedemoing Crysis?

That way we could know for sure if it uses less than 4 cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R101

Can someone show load graph on the cores while timedemoing Crysis?

That way we could know for sure if it uses less than 4 cores.

---

core1:[------------------------------------------------------------90% ]
core2:[---5% ]
core3:[--3% ]
core4:[----5% ]


1 core only

Be careful with the dual vs quad and so on in the time demo. Since there is no AI and such to be used. We need a real world run instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Be careful with the dual vs quad and so on in the time demo. Since there is no AI and such to be used. We need a real world run instead.

---

Yep, specially considering the game ran smoothly DX10 16x12 maxed here until there was action. Thats where the margins will be a real kick if they are there to be found.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

OK, so Phenom performance is obviously sub par, but what about Penryn?

---

yep, no surprise here. while the penryn's improvements are kinda discouraging..

Quote:

---

And QC? Hardly no gains over C2D at all! Is it true that the Crysis SP demo is not multithreaded? It better be, otherwise all this talk of 'QC is needed for Crysis' is just total BS!

---

I think it's the demo, otherwise we'd have to assume that the devs straight out lied to the public, saying that QC is important... I don't think so.

Quote:

---

I guess the 'good' news is that Phenom is capable of overlclocking to 3GHz on the B2 stepping... but it doesn't do much good when C2D/C2Q is superior clock for clock and clocking to 4GHz+ (in the case of Penryn) or 3.5GHz+ with current 65nm Conroes/Kentsfields.

---

Neither good nor bad news. AMD already showed off their 3ghz parts. Now we have proof: at least they didn't lie. However 3ghz is just an overclock, like Intel showing off 3.6-4.0ghz penryn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Be careful with the dual vs quad and so on in the time demo. Since there is no AI and such to be used. We need a real world run instead.

---

so basically this only useful for GPU testing?

phenom x4 works period.
i myself am not trying to break records
thats all i need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by knightwolf654

phenom x4 works period.
i myself am not trying to break records
thats all i need.

---

great, it works! but isn't that what you'd expect from a multi-billion dollar company? or is there something special about amd :D

Doesnt even tell us what resolution they were run at :(

Im guessing low res

Isn't Crysis highly optimized for Intel and nVidia? Taking in the fact that intel and nvidia had engineers helping out Crytek with the game. So is it a surprise for anyone that intel and nVidia are doing better in this game? And why are we even discussing results from a demo that is singlethreaded?

Why everybody says AMD is owned with Crysis's benchmark showing less than 8% advantage for final Intel platform versus to beta AMD platform :shrug: .
Moreover we don't know the price of AMD platform.
For me the only thing I think watching Crysis benchmarks is Penryn is same as conroe in term of performance in game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeardyMan

core1:[------------------------------------------------------------90% ]
core2:[---5% ]
core3:[--3% ]
core4:[----5% ]


1 core only

---

Waiting for the full game, then. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

Why everybody says AMD is owned with Crysis's benchmark showing less than 8% advantage for final Intel platform versus to beta AMD platform :shrug: .
Moreover we don't know the price of AMD platform.
For me the only thing I think watching Crysis benchmarks is Penryn is same as conroe in term of performance in game.

---

Intel's expected to launch most of it's line up after AMD. Barcelona is supposed to be here, and we are *supposed to see* a nice range of Phenoms in Q4 BUT only the XE from Intel (they don't have the 45nm capacity for high volume atm).
Intel's platform is also in "beta stage", and Intel can do a lot through memory,fsb, chipset tweaking while AMD can't (IMC...). True, AMD's arch is more of a redisgn than Intel's shrink, but both companies are going to sell their platforms in the same timeframe - so AMD should be in the same stage as Intel.
CPUs aren't like GPUs they don't improve much after release.

sorry, 333fsb vs 200 ? nice try by anand

higher fsb on amd still makes a difference

also, dont forget, demo @ 1 thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

sorry, 333fsb vs 200 ? nice try by anand

higher fsb on amd still makes a difference

also, dont forget, demo @ 1 thread

---

even more memory bandwidth... we sure need that. :yepp:

well i guess some people like level to load faster. :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

Why everybody says AMD is owned with Crysis's benchmark showing less than 8% advantage for final Intel platform versus to beta AMD platform :shrug: .
Moreover we don't know the price of AMD platform.
For me the only thing I think watching Crysis benchmarks is Penryn is same as conroe in term of performance in game.

---

Well, how about the fact that a fully overclocked Phenom @ 3GHz is still 7.5% slower than a STOCK 3GHz C2D/C2Q that can be overclocked to 3.5GHz+ for 65nm and 4GHz+ for 45nm?

I'd say AMD has had its ass handed to it on a silver platter. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

even more memory bandwidth... we sure need that. :yepp:

well i guess some people like level to load faster. :p:

---

yeh?

well, try to keep up with my X4/areca1680/4x15Ksas or 4x ssd

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tictac

Phenom B2 have max HT multiplier of 8... What he did to achive 3GHz was by setting the multiplier up to 15... HT Multiplier still at 8

so HT Link : 200MHz x 8 = 1600MHz
CPU speed : 200MHz x 15 = 3000MHz

NB speed should be arround 1.6GHz on that setup as well..... :shrug:
Dual Channel with ganged mode ..... :shakes:

---

If what you say is correct, then that would explain the horrendous performance. 1.6GHz NB would slow down performance by a lot.

why is everyone so obsessed with the fsb... if it brings more than 1-2% performance increase i would be surprised. (notice how much core2 gained from 266 to 333...)

Wow, people must really need AMD to fail to see that from this insignificant little test. Even if it stays the same with other benchmarks, AMD will still sell these chips and provided the ATI sector sells their Graphic cards AMD will start making a profit. They don't have to regain the performance crown to stay in business and thank god for all of us that, if this test is an indication, they will.

Does it matter that it took over 1.5V to reach 3G what is probably a 2.6G sample. To us it seems to, but its probably more significant that they hit 3G in the first place. They start out with 2.4 and 2.6G Phenoms. If this test is an indication, it looks like a 2.6G Phenom will outperform a 2.4G Yorkie and if they sell it lower, they'll sell a bunch of them. Sure, the Yorkie can be overclocked to probably over 4G with air, but beyond sites like these, no one cares.

If this trend continues, will I build my next computer around a Yorkie, certainly. But, I represent less then 1% of people who buy computers. Honesly, I'm encouraged by the results. It looks like AMD will stay in business and I'll get to buy cpus at a reasonable cost. Let hope they don't lose more important benchmarks by 20%. Then, they'd be in trouble and so would the rest of us. Unless of course you have lots of money or you get free cpus.

Not alot in it between dual and quad core; would suggest that maybe the game is only taking advantage of 2 cores?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

Well, how about the fact that a fully overclocked Phenom @ 3GHz is still 7.5% slower than a STOCK 3GHz C2D/C2Q that can be overclocked to 3.5GHz+ for 65nm and 4GHz+ for 45nm?

I'd say AMD has had its ass handed to it on a silver platter. :rolleyes:

---

QFT. OCed X4 vs stock C2D and Yorkfield. And still pwned. Intel wins in both sides, clock per clock perfomance AND clock speeds, by a wide margin.

This sucks, who gave me my future Yorkfield at good prices then? :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

why is everyone so obsessed with the fsb... if it brings more than 1-2% performance increase i would be surprised. (notice how much core2 gained from 266 to 333...)

---

It's not the FSB. The NB controls important factors like the L3 cache speed. In this case, the L3 cache is effectively running at ~50% speed (3GHz/1.6GHz).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

Well, how about the fact that a fully overclocked Phenom @ 3GHz is still 7.5% slower than a STOCK 3GHz C2D/C2Q that can be overclocked to 3.5GHz+ for 65nm and 4GHz+ for 45nm?

I'd say AMD has had its ass handed to it on a silver platter. :rolleyes:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

QFT. OCed X4 vs stock C2D and Yorkfield. And still pwned. Intel wins in both sides, clock per clock perfomance AND clock speeds, by a wide margin.

This sucks, who gave me my future Yorkfield at good prices then? :(

---

1. Your assumption is based on the fact that 3GHz is the max overclocking of Phenom : we don't know.
2. Those numbers are based on the fact that the test is doing with final platform for all : we don't know.

So with two hypothesis you draw a conclusion, that's funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowmage

Disappointing performance by AMD.

Note that cache and DIV/SQRT/SHUF seem to have no effect in Farcry. The only thing I can think of is branch prediction

---

Under 5% difference, and that's disappointing. :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jacky

great, it works! but isn't that what you'd expect from a multi-billion dollar company? or is there something special about amd :D

---

I'd expect it to work and seems to be only 5% or less of an Intel quadcore. If there was a $100 difference between an Intel quadcore and AMD quadcore, i'd suck up the 5% and grab the AMD. 5% isn't even noticeable in 90% of the applications out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

1. Your assumption is based on the fact that 3GHz is the max overclocking of Phenom : we don't know.
2. Those numbers are based on the fact that the test is doing with final platform for all : we don't know.

So with two hypothesis you draw a conclusion, that's funny.

---

1. Yeah, cause Phenom is gonna clock to 4GHz+ with the next miracle stepping! Anyone care for a dance in the aisles with our friend Charlie from TheINQ? :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF:

2. Both are pre-release chips... so either AMD is leaving performance tuning very late or you are just clutching at straws here. Do you really expect a new BIOS to give a 10% clock for clock gain for K10?! :rolleyes:

You know what else is funny? You clinging to the hope that an overclocked Phenom will have any chance against an overclocked Yorkfield. :up:

Clock for clock disadvantage / lower headroom != performance parity :shakes:

amd fanpoi: yorkfield's only 5% faster than k10 @ 3ghz
intel fanboy: yorkfield overclocks to well over 4ghz
amd fanpoi: this is madness..
intel fanboy: madness? THIS IS XS!!! *kick

Additionally pricing & power consumption are vital factors in this equation and they're virtual unknowns at this point. Price/performance is what really matters to most, not just performance. So what if AMD is a little slower than Intel in the next round? They've been behind for over a year. If AMD can somehow price phenom so that it's competitive w/ Intel relative to the performance then phenom will be at least partially successful. We ALL need AMD to get competitive again or Intel will cut their product lines substantially, jack up the prices, and stop innovating. It's silly to want AMD to fail as it would almost certainly hurt all us technofiends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

1. Yeah, cause Phenom is gonna clock to 4GHz+ with the next miracle stepping! Anyone care for a dance in the aisles with our friend Charlie from TheINQ? :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF:

2. Both are pre-release chips... so either AMD is leaving performance tuning very late or you are just clutching at straws here. Do you really expect a new BIOS to give a 10% clock for clock gain for K10?! :rolleyes:

You know what else is funny? You clinging to the hope that an overclocked Phenom will have any chance against an overclocked Yorkfield. :up:

Clock for clock disadvantage / lower headroom != performance parity :shakes:

---

1. Cause u know someone with a Phenom rigth now who can prove that this can't happen?

2. Penryn is out right now no? And u carefully read this thread some already talk about the fact that the platform is far from optimum.

U go on being funny for sure. I'm not hope because I have actually seen nothing of Phenom.

blah blah blah blah blah

man how far stuck up our own arses are some of us

:rolleyes:

The arguments in this thread are so ridiculously stupid that its hard to swallow that XS has been invaded by rabid fanbois.

amd: mines better than yours
Intel : no mines better
amd: nope mine mine mine mine
Intel: no no no its miiiiiiiiine!!!!
amd: noooooooooo

The one thing that sticks out from this benchmark is that there is a bottleneck IRRESPECTIVE of the setups used! It couldnt be plainer to see, yet, we all decide to ignore this fact and base our 'discussions' on ifs, buts and ASSUMPTIONS on things that have not been released.

How stupid is that?

Lets look at the numbers.......

If we pretend that the test was only between Intel CPU's then we would see the following

Benchmark---Intel E6850 ---------Intel QX6850--- Intel QX9650
Frequency---3Ghz (333mhz x 9)---(333mhz x 9)---(333mhz x 9)
Run0--------44.01----------------45.14----------45.46
Run1--------50.42----------------51.37----------51.24
Run2--------51.12----------------51.63----------51.55
Run3--------51.21----------------51.55----------51.56
Average-----49.19----------------49.92----------49.95

HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

How obvious is the bottleneck is NOT in the CPU.

Yet still just because the results of a K10 were added that where at best 5% slower there are people posting here as if amd had released a K10 with the performance of a K6.

:clap:

Way to go einsteins........

Hopefully some sanity will return to XS, doubtfull as there are too many tub thumpers here trying to cloud neutrals opinions on unreleased hardware. Personally its getting tiring and saddening, XS never used to be like this

:down:

Once the K10 platform has been out for 6 months will we really know what the true picture is, at the moment some people are so hell bent on muddying the waters and i cant figure out why.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

1. Your assumption is based on the fact that 3GHz is the max overclocking of Phenom : we don't know.
2. Those numbers are based on the fact that the test is doing with final platform for all : we don't know.

So with two hypothesis you draw a conclusion, that's funny.

---

1. My assumption is based on the fact that Intel processors are at stock with a huge OC headroom (we already know this) and the AMD processor is overclocked and we know that there wont be more than 2,5Ghz Barcelonas at launch, when Intel has its 3Ghz pieces out there now.
2. Agree, we don´t know details, but this is the same for both sides. So no problems here.

The funny thing is that you and a bunch of people act like blind people. Phenom will fail. Not even close to a year+ old uArch, Intel Core, and far away Penryn in power consumption and dissipated heat. (and clock per clock perfomance of course)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoled

blah blah blah blah blah

man how far stuck up our own arses are some of us

:rolleyes:

The arguments in this thread are so ridiculously stupid that its hard to swallow that XS has been invaded by rabid fanbois.

amd: mines better than yours
Intel : no mines better
amd: nope mine mine mine mine
Intel: no no no its miiiiiiiiine!!!!
amd: noooooooooo

The one thing that sticks out from this benchmark is that there is a bottleneck IRRESPECTIVE of the setups used! I couldnt be plainer to see, yet, we all decide to ignore this fact and base our 'discussions' on ifs, buts and ASSUMPTIONS on things that have not been released.

How stupid is that?

Lets look at the numbers.......

If we pretend that the test was only between Intel CPU's then we would see the following

Benchmark---Intel E6850 ---------Intel QX6850--- Intel QX9650
Frequency---3Ghz (333mhz x 9)---(333mhz x 9)---(333mhz x 9)
Run0--------44.01----------------45.14----------45.46
Run1--------50.42----------------51.37----------51.24
Run2--------51.12----------------51.63----------51.55
Run3--------51.21----------------51.55----------51.56
Average-----49.19----------------49.92----------49.95

HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

How obvious is the bottleneck is NOT in the CPU.

Yet still just because the results of a K10 were added that where at best 5% slower there are people posting here as if amd had released a K10 with the performance of a K6.

:clap:

Way to go einsteins........

Hopefully some sanity will return to XS, doubtfull as there are too many tub thumpers here trying to cloud neutrals opinions on unreleased hardware. Personally its getting tiring and saddening, XS never used to be like this

:down:

Once the K10 platform has been out for 6 months will we really know what the true picture is, at the moment some people are so hell bent on muddying the waters and i cant figure out why.....

---

well said.

seems like bashing amd is kind of a temporary fashion or smth...

back then i joined xs due to it's mostly objective and informative posts and threads. i mean, there always were fanboys etc, but tbh, in the last months/year this increased exponentially and became absolutely annoying.

and no, i'm not an amd fanboy or smth, but it really hurts me if people say smth like "amd is no more due to 2012 LOLZ!... ROFL AMD, DIE!".
wtf, i'd never say something like that about neither intel nor amd. grow up.
furthermore, whoever of them, amd or intel, closes down, we, the customer, would lose. that's for sure...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss

AbelJemka,

Yorkfield is not released, the release date is 12th of November. In the benchmark they were using P35 and DDR2 800. There are mainboards with X38 chipset which is faster, as well as DDR3 1333MHz CL5 and DDR2 1066 CL4(supported by both P35 and X38). There is going to be another generation of Intel chipset for LGA775. So the platform used for Yorkfield ES is not even close to final.

K10 is good on 2P or more, just because the IMCs and the HTT links.
Face it AMD failed to deliver anything that can cause a little headache to Intel on the desktop.
Phenom will sux compared to Kentsfield, clock for clock. It'll never compete against Yorkfield. Phenom will need at least 2.7GHz to compete against the slowest Yorkfield(the 2.5GHz with 2x3MB L2) in performance. Yorkfield has no competition for energy efficiency and overclocking ability.

---

Yorkfield failed its a next nextgen product at 45nm and can't deliver more worthy performance then Phenom 65nm.

STaRGaZeR, phenom will fail ?

whats tomorrows lottery numbers please ?

Pre-release CPUs and pre-release chipsets and a bunch premature adults on an internet forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaZz!

and no, i'm not an amd fanboy or smth, but it really hurts me if people say smth like "amd is no more due to 2012 LOLZ!... ROFL AMD, DIE!".
wtf, i'd never say something like that about neither intel nor amd. grow up.

---

even if it was true? Oh man are you blind or smth? Don't you see they are rapidly running out of money. If AMD doesn't start to deliver very soon, they have HUGE PROBLEMS. that I can promise you.

Q3 was a better than average quartal for Intel&AMD. Still AMD managed a net loss of 260-299M$ (don't remember the exact number) excluding the ATI purchase.
ATI can't make any money even though Q3 should have been quite good, they had almost their full line up ready, lower production node compared to nvidia, hd 2900xt getting better and better drivers - still they didn't even manage to break even! With the 8800gt they will hardly do much better..

The same applies to AMD, they probably already included some major Barcelona sales and still made a big loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoled

The arguments in this thread are so ridiculously stupid that its hard to swallow that XS has been invaded by rabid fanbois.

---

No argument. We know that K10 won't be faster than penryn on the desktop. However it will lack SSE4, consume more power, overclock worse, bla, bla...

Barc is strong in 2p+ and in BW intensive apps. NOT on desktop/notebook (we have enough benchmarks to prove that, spec_fp/int, anandtech's extrapolation).
AMD may break even in Q3/Q4 2008 at the earliest.. that's their main problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Power consumption increases with the square of V.

That's utter BS.SOI and metal gates address different factors of leakage , SOI is becoming less useful once you get to 65nm and lower.

The fact that SOI doesn't adress gate leakage , the biggest problem at 65/45/32nm means that AMD had to use thicker gates which equal slower transistors.

---

You dont know that. There is more to process design and materials than just fancy terms. AMD is supposed to soon implemen a new variant of SOI called SGOI that incorporates an eSiGe substrate and is supposed to have 40% increased electron mobility. AMD plans to use high-k and metal gates either later at 45nm or at the latest at 32nm. As for SOI runnng out of steam thats just an assumption(at best) you have made and no, AMD evaluating all of their options does not mean anything really. Any tech company will always do research before committing itself to any technology. It would have been shocking if AMD/IBM weren't evaluating all the options available to them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Huh ? Where do you get this info ?

1.5V is huge for a 65nm process ; 90nm used 1.35-1.4V.

---

I agree that 1.5V is huge for 65nm in fact i think its nowhere near default voltage and i doubt they tweaked their overclock at all. He is right about desktop Yorkfields though, but that is only because Intel is aggressively binning all good dies for Xeons so that they can keep the very low 80WTDP for them. So i see this TDP improving very quickly once production increases. This is a clear sign though that 45nm will not be high volume till at least Q2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

STaRGaZeR, phenom will fail ?

whats tomorrows lottery numbers please ?

---

I´m talking about final perfomance (CPC and clock speeds here), power consumption and heat disipated. No, it won´t fail in the meaning of "fail" you´re using, but they will be for mainstream. We want the best perfomance, and will never buy one of those if we want that perfomance. If you are a fanboy, well, you will buy every sh|t AMD throws at you. Every "bench" we have seen points in that direction. If you don´t thrust them, you will see it in a few months with your own eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mongoled

blah blah blah blah blah

man how far stuck up our own arses are some of us

:rolleyes:

The arguments in this thread are so ridiculously stupid that its hard to swallow that XS has been invaded by rabid fanbois.

amd: mines better than yours
Intel : no mines better
amd: nope mine mine mine mine
Intel: no no no its miiiiiiiiine!!!!
amd: noooooooooo

The one thing that sticks out from this benchmark is that there is a bottleneck IRRESPECTIVE of the setups used! It couldnt be plainer to see, yet, we all decide to ignore this fact and base our 'discussions' on ifs, buts and ASSUMPTIONS on things that have not been released.

How stupid is that?

Lets look at the numbers.......

If we pretend that the test was only between Intel CPU's then we would see the following

Benchmark---Intel E6850 ---------Intel QX6850--- Intel QX9650
Frequency---3Ghz (333mhz x 9)---(333mhz x 9)---(333mhz x 9)
Run0--------44.01----------------45.14----------45.46
Run1--------50.42----------------51.37----------51.24
Run2--------51.12----------------51.63----------51.55
Run3--------51.21----------------51.55----------51.56
Average-----49.19----------------49.92----------49.95

HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

How obvious is the bottleneck is NOT in the CPU.

Yet still just because the results of a K10 were added that where at best 5% slower there are people posting here as if amd had released a K10 with the performance of a K6.

:clap:

Way to go einsteins........

Hopefully some sanity will return to XS, doubtfull as there are too many tub thumpers here trying to cloud neutrals opinions on unreleased hardware. Personally its getting tiring and saddening, XS never used to be like this

:down:

Once the K10 platform has been out for 6 months will we really know what the true picture is, at the moment some people are so hell bent on muddying the waters and i cant figure out why.....

---

How dare you post the obvious! :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

How dare you post the obvious! :rofl:

---

Hello Mr Shintai, who joined XS on Aug 2006 and has already racked up over 2000 posts.

Your persona fits perfectly in line with those who in my opinion have devalued the essense of XS. Although your knowledge evidently extends far beyond whats green and blue you also are the most frustrating type of poster.

How can someone who obviously has a respectable level of IQ be so hell bent on offering opinions that are so one sided?

What is your perogative?

In the past there was a discussion on XS regarding the alliances that certain forum members had with regards to companies that manufacture, market and sell certain products.

It seems that we have come round in a full circle and the same thing is happening again.

I cant accept the fact that someone as your self can be so biased towards a company without having a hidden agenda. I just wish there was a way that peeps posting with hidden agendas could be ousted and shamed for what they are doing to this community.

Only those responsible for XS can help put a stop to this. Otherwise more and more peeps who can discuss things on a logical level will stop posting here.......

Please note and READ that I have not directly said that YOU have a hidden agenda, I am sure though that there are peeps here who will know if this is the case or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

sorry, 333fsb vs 200 ? nice try by anand

higher fsb on amd still makes a difference

also, dont forget, demo @ 1 thread

---

Huh ?

The 1600MHz HT links offers 6.4GBs of BW and low latency.That's more than enough since the memory traffic isn't there.

This is simply grasping for straws...

Another nice one : RAM running at 800 CL5.

Hello world : 99% of DDR2 800 in this world runs at CL5.
Hello world take 2 : using better RAM improves the scores.But this is also true for the Intel platform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR

You dont know that. There is more to process design and materials than just fancy terms. AMD is supposed to soon implemen a new variant of SOI called SGOI that incorporates an eSiGe substrate and is supposed to have 40% increased electron mobility. AMD plans to use high-k and metal gates either later at 45nm or at the latest at 32nm. As for SOI runnng out of steam thats just an assumption(at best) you have made and no, AMD evaluating all of their options does not mean anything really. Any tech company will always do research before committing itself to any technology. It would have been shocking if AMD/IBM weren't evaluating all the options available to them

---

This is funny ( or pretty sad depending on how you see it ).

AMD plans to ramp 45nm in H1 2008 and is building CPUs as we speak on 45nm ( if we were to believe Ruiz ) , yet , 3 months ago they didn't know which way to go on 45nm.

As for the 40% claim , nothing is free my dear Watson.The ceteris paribus condition isn't fulfilled.They might get 40% , but the trade offs aren't shown.

As for High-K and metal gates , that's the most significant change in silicon technology in 40 years ; it's a turning point in addressing future scaling.
Claiming that it doesn't matter and will somehow be mitigated by herculean efforts with SGOI and low-k is just a refusal to accept the reality : IBM/AMD did not have the R&D , money and brainpower to implement this features in a timely manner.

Quote:

---

I agree that 1.5V is huge for 65nm in fact i think its nowhere near default voltage and i doubt they tweaked their overclock at all. He is right about desktop Yorkfields though, but that is only because Intel is aggressively binning all good dies for Xeons so that they can keep the very low 80WTDP for them. So i see this TDP improving very quickly once production increases. This is a clear sign though that 45nm will not be high volume till at least Q2

---

Actually Xeons are binned conservatively , closet to their worst case scenario.Intel also uses slower , less leakier transistors because their offer better reliability.

As for the "clear sign" this might be obvious only to you since Intel plans to crossover to 45nm in Q3 2008.
Compared to AMD's volume , Intel's 45nm process will be high volume starting with this Q.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

Huh ?

The 1600MHz HT links offers 6.4GBs of BW and low latency.That's more than enough since the memory traffic isn't there.

This is simply grasping for straws...

Another nice one : RAM running at 800 CL5.

Hello world : 99% of DDR2 800 in this world runs at CL5.
Hello world take 2 : using better RAM improves the scores.But this is also true for the Intel platform.

---

But it's also true that timings almost do nothing on an intel plattform but can do miracles for the AMD platform.