The Spin off Smoothness Thread

Ripped out of the Review Thread and put into it's own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

I dont see how this will prove anything, if you run max threads of prime on a quad core and then start a game every system will output less fps, it doesn't matter if its intel or amd or any other cpu.

---

I guess you missed the part where I mention adding different things that would tie up various resources until you could determine where the CPU's actually had a difference? Your limited response only addresses one of those resources.

It is true that the i7 would perform better than the older Intel chips and be smoother. BUT it is not true that it would automagically be better because of hyperthreading. The jury is still out on whether hyperthreading is actually useful or detrimental in heavily stressed systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

A closed mind, or thinking you already know everything there is to know, is never a good place to be. There is not a single person on this site that knows everything there is to know about computer platforms.

---

That is why I find it amusing when someone jumps in and screams "NO... this can't be real. You can't test for this. Closed case. Everybody ignore this person. <fingers in ears> na-na-na-na-na"

Perhaps it might be difficult to find a test that will allow for this. But if someone just closes their mind and won't even concede that there might be something that could be tested they are not showing a modicum of knowledge on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

i said about a year ago about this whole phenom smoother thing that it had to do with the fast hyper transport speeds and the fact that the cpu has such low latency and it can just whip things out lightning speed. when you have things like super pi or something that sits in the cpu cache and doesn't really exit the cpu that often intel will get better performance. but with the way amd has designed their platform and made the connection speeds so fast it just seems obvious that it would be smoother.

---

I think you hit he nail on the head. I think eventually this topic will find its way into Intel forums as a discussion about i7 versus C2Q. However the C2Q fans might just accept it when it pertains to the i7 because they are part of the same "fraternity".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by knopflerbruce

I'm switching from 940 to am2 to 775 from time to time, and the most "smooth" setup of those 3 is the am2 setup. Not too much difference, though, and I have a hard time proving anything, but that's just my .02.

---

Actually that is what initially made me a believer. Initially I didn't consider it possible. Then I went from my 939 to an AM2+ board preparing to get a Phenom. For testing and bios updates I ended up getting an X2 CPU that was the same speed as my old socket 939 CPU. What a difference. I would guess that you couldn't measure that difference with any available benchmark. (I often run Prime95, everest stress, and the NVidia Cascades demo to heat up and stress any new system. On the old socket 939 it worked. On the AM2+ system with the "same" CPU it was dramatically... wait for it... SMOOTHER. (And now I can't use the NVidia demo. Dang it. Although Froblins might someday work for that purpose if they get it working with Crossfire.)

My decades of experience working on various projects such as doing benchmarks on a Cray (SGI) computer or Sun Starfire system made me stop and think: "Hey... there must be a way we could create a repeatable test."

But to do a comparative benchmark and find the difference you must have both types of systems. I have not really put a lot of additional effort into this idea because I don't have an Intel system at home AND the fact that even if/when I came up with a repeatable method of measuring this aspect... you would STILL have closed minded people on forums claiming it doesn't mean anything.

Taking smoother to mean more stable and consistant frame rates, if fraps or an equvlilent application can catalogue a history of frame render times to a resolution of one thousandths of a second I don't understand how this phenomena (no pun intended) can't be quantified as it's proponents tend to claim it can't. As soon as it becomes a question of faith I'm sceptical. I've tried to question people about this on several forums and haven't be given a satisfactory answer or demonstration posted to youtube.

What I find funny is that for some time we have had to listen about how cpu performance was not all that important and so what if you had to wait a few minutes extra on an encoding job or a few extra raring a file and a few extra fps is also irrelevant BUT apparently a non quantifiable difference off a few milliseconds opining a program is of supreme importance lol

+1 for placebo affect and a p4 1.8ghz with a new hdd and fresh windows install will feel faster than a 3ghzcore2 with a 2year old install

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallag

What I find funny is that for some time we have had to listen about how cpu performance was not all that important and so what if you had to wait a few minutes extra on an encoding job or a few extra raring a file and a few extra fps is also irrelevant BUT apparently a non quantifiable difference off a few milliseconds opining a program is of supreme importance lol

+1 for placebo affect and a p4 1.8ghz with a new hdd and fresh windows install will feel faster than a 3ghzcore2 with a 2year old install

---

Agree. :up:

There might be a "techie" explanation for "smoothness" other than fresh install/enough RAM (also GPUMem!).

One should think AMD with the IMC (prior to ci7/Nehalem) should have an advantage when the OS/Software "calls" intstructions for memory-IO from/to RAM/CPU.
Another important aspect (apart from *drivers*) is chipset/PCI-E bus and any differences in hw&sw implementation for accessing/passing data from/to pheripals (like graphics cards/HD's etc).

Personally I have not seen any differences between my AMD/Intel rigs (about 50/50 during the years).
What really make a difference for 3D is the amount of GPUMem where large textures have to be "swapped" in/out.

there are other factors that can affect smoothness as well but you can't blame them every single time for why something is not smooth. most of the time when people are doing this testing they are using the same ram and the same hdds. it would be nice if someone could find some method of testing this if anyone has any ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallag

What I find funny is that for some time we have had to listen about how cpu performance was not all that important and so what if you had to wait a few minutes extra on an encoding job or a few extra raring a file and a few extra fps is also irrelevant BUT apparently a non quantifiable difference off a few milliseconds opining a program is of supreme importance lol

---

I am a very heavy multitasker and i can tell you that it is annoying when the computer isn't smooth. I don't have much user experiance of using a Intel Quad so can't say anything there but C2D I have a lot of experience of. I bought a pretty fast laptop and was planning to work on that, because of the uneven behaiviour it isn't used much more than to surf on.
Starting applications isn't a big problem though. The problems is that the mouse can stop, if you are a used to work with the computer you hardly need to look at the mouse moving to other locations, but if the mouse suddenly make a tiny stop (it is very small but enough) you miss the target. Opening popup menus and you expect the menu to show immediately. But it there are some other work in progress on the C2D it doesn't. Typing in some advanced editor and sometimes things go very fast and suddenly you need to wait, not much but enough that the workflow breaks.

That's why i prefer amd. All the intel rigs i used before i built my first amd system had that annoying lag when i would move to anything different. Intel may have all out speed but amd is smooth and steady imo.

The irony being that when phenoms were hitting the shelves they couldn't OC as high and be stable in Vista so at a slower speed they were some how smoother. I think not. I switch back from AMD to Intel and can tell you a p133 can install and run XP so if that tells you anything I don't thing smoothness is much to brag about in XP which for a long time and now continues to be widely used. Smoothness is just a justification for going with AMD, more of a placebo than anything. It's like being proud you bought a Mustang cause you always wanted one but couldn't afford a V8. So when someone asks you why you went with the V6 you tell e'm well I wanted to save on mileage.
I have a lot of hope for Phenom IIs I think the 2mb of cache was really holding them back I don't care how you sell it 2mb for a Quad is pretty pathetic when you want something highend from AMD. Soon as I get the cash and MCP82 boards come out I'm pickin one up I dunno about you guys but 8mb of cache and a quad from AMD I'm down for gaming, and it's not going to based on smoothness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

Smoothness is just a justification for going with AMD, more of a placebo than anything.

---

And the "placebo" is the defense for Intel users justifying the higher price and that theirs CPU therefore needs to be better ;)
As I said before, I don't have that much experiance using a C2Q but you need to be blind if you don't notice the differences comparing a C2D (no OC) and A Phenom when some multitasking is in the works. Don't know how the C2D feels if you overclock it.
if I run performance tests on the C2D and the Phenom the C2D wins most of the time.

Before I bought the phenom for the work computer I had Opteron 165. It IS slower than the C2D, you feel that it is much slower but it is also smooth. And that makes it feel pleasant to work with even if tasks takes a bit longer to complete.

I think the main difference is that Intel has gone totally for speed. They have worked on their already fast areas and made those faster. The weak parts is still weak though.
Amd has done the opposite. They have worked on their weak parts and made those faster. The processor doesn't have any weak areas. But it doesn't have any superfast areas either. The CPU is evenly built.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

And the "placebo" is the defense for Intel users justifying the higher price and that theirs CPU therefore needs to be better ;)
As I said before, I don't have that much experiance using a C2Q but you need to be blind if you don't notice the differences comparing a C2D (no OC) and A Phenom when some multitasking is in the works. Don't know how the C2D feels if you overclock it.
if I run performance tests on the C2D and the Phenom the C2D wins most of the time.

Before I bought the phenom for the work computer I had Opteron 165. It IS slower than the C2D, you feel that it is much slower but it is also smooth. And that makes it feel pleasant to work with even if tasks takes a bit longer to complete.

I think the main difference is that Intel has gone totally for speed. They have worked on their already fast areas and made those faster. The weak parts is still weak though.
Amd has done the opposite. They have worked on their weak parts and made those faster. The processor doesn't have any weak areas. But it doesn't have any superfast areas either. The CPU is evenly built.

---

So your saying in performance tests you'll see a C2D win but in a 939 you'll feel better smoothness. Hrmm yeah I can't say I've seen too many people go from a 939 to a Phenom or C2D back to a 939 again. How are AMDs ratios compared to Intel, cause if AMD runs something inparticularly tighter that could have an effect.
So basing your performance on desktop smoothness I don't think is gonna do it for most people. Again another car analogy, it's like a car salesman being like well ya know that car over there has 300HP and grumbles and shakes a bit but this one hear well it's only 100hp but its smooth as silk when it idles. You want the best performance out of your processor generally meaning the fastest so its prolly going to be obvious the one you'd want to buy even if it is a bit rough around the edges

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

So your saying in performance tests you'll see a C2D win but in a 939 you'll feel better smoothness.

---

No! I said that even if the Opeteron 165 is slow it isn't that problematic because it is smooth. I wouldn't switch back from C2D but the smoothness removes some of the slowness.
Advantages for the C2D is enough comparing Opteron 165 even if the CPU is schizophrenic.

The C2D wins most performance tests (they are mostly singlethreaded) against my phenom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

So your saying in performance tests you'll see a C2D win but in a 939 you'll feel better smoothness. Hrmm yeah I can't say I've seen too many people go from a 939 to a Phenom or C2D back to a 939 again. How are AMDs ratios compared to Intel, cause if AMD runs something inparticularly tighter that could have an effect.
So basing your performance on desktop smoothness I don't think is gonna do it for most people. Again another car analogy, it's like a car salesman being like well ya know that car over there has 300HP and grumbles and shakes a bit but this one hear well it's only 100hp but its smooth as silk when it idles. You want the best performance out of your processor generally meaning the fastest so its prolly going to be obvious the one you'd want to buy even if it is a bit rough around the edges

---

Then the amd car has 275hp but it's transmission is smoother and quicker shifting :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

Smoothness is just a justification for going with AMD, more of a placebo than anything.

---

you rarely see many people pull the smoothness card so i don't see how that is a justification. plus what do we have to prove? we buy our cpus because we do and even if some people buy amd because they can't afford intel it doesn't mean they are going to try to hide it by saying o it was the better choice. plus as i have said before the only people that can say it was smooth were the ones that have had both. so obviously they bought amd over intel for a reason or they were completely neutral and they have no side to stick to and just think the amd is smoother. the problem is that many people just refuse to believe this is true and they have no proof to back it up. they will say something like o well the fps is higher so its smoother. hell what if an intel cpu can pump out 20 frames in half a second and then there is a hitch and it pauses up for a little while and then another 15 frames come out in the last half of the second. so that would be 35 fps. then lets say that the amd has 30 frames throughout the entire second without a hitch or anything. sure the intel system has higher fps but does that mean it is smoother? if you like car analogies lets say you are driving along at 60 miles an hour and you slam on the brakes every 10 seconds and then speed back up again. then lets say another car is going 40 miles an hour without slowing down or speeding up. the car going 40 miles an hour will have a smoother ride even tho the car going 60 will most likely make it farther. the same can be said for fps. intel might get more fps but it won't do it at a smooth rate so it doesn't matter how many fps you can get if its not smooth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

So your saying in performance tests you'll see a C2D win but in a 939 you'll feel better smoothness. Hrmm yeah I can't say I've seen too many people go from a 939 to a Phenom or C2D back to a 939 again. How are AMDs ratios compared to Intel, cause if AMD runs something inparticularly tighter that could have an effect.
So basing your performance on desktop smoothness I don't think is gonna do it for most people. Again another car analogy, it's like a car salesman being like well ya know that car over there has 300HP and grumbles and shakes a bit but this one hear well it's only 100hp but its smooth as silk when it idles. You want the best performance out of your processor generally meaning the fastest so its prolly going to be obvious the one you'd want to buy even if it is a bit rough around the edges

---

a car analogy could like this

V8 low RPM Horse power, 4 cylinder high RPM same power
the torque lines are much shorted on the 4 cylinder the v8 start very low
V8 can curse at 1,5000 rpm. 4 cylinder hit 60mph at 3,000 rpm (sometimes lower with overdrive on both).

back on topic

phenom got a bad wrap thanks to tom's and anand for fail to to see. phenom clocking isn't good with HTT. cooling will need to sufficient I don't think they've ever used water on one yet they will on core 2's.

the only positive things I've ever read from them about is it's 15% faster then K8.
phenom is only lacking SSE pre-core compered to core2.

I picked amd because at the time they just came out with the brisbane and it was like 80 bucks, paired that with a 75 dollar dfi mobo and clocked the x2 to 3ghz and i was very happy. My buddy built a e6400 and bx2 rig around the same time, he spent quite a bit more but he could afford to. Sure his rig is faster but he kept asking me how can he make his rig as smooth as mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

plus as i have said before the only people that can say it was smooth were the ones that have had both. so obviously they bought amd over intel for a reason or they were completely neutral and they have no side to stick to and just think the amd is smoother. the problem is that many people just refuse to believe this is true and they have no proof to back it up. they will say something like o well the fps is higher so its smoother.

---

See it's impossible to know really, look how bogged down this side of the forum is with AMD fanboys. You can scream at me till your blue in the face that AMD is smoother but look at video card reviews, people want to see cards running at their max well obviously they aren't picking AMD as of late.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

lets say that the amd has 30 frames throughout the entire second without a hitch or anything. sure the intel system has higher fps but does that mean it is smoother? if you like car analogies lets say you are driving along at 60 miles an hour and you slam on the brakes every 10 seconds and then speed back up again. then lets say another car is going 40 miles an hour without slowing down or speeding up. the car going 40 miles an hour will have a smoother ride even tho the car going 60 will most likely make it farther. the same can be said for fps. intel might get more fps but it won't do it at a smooth rate so it doesn't matter how many fps you can get if its not smooth.

---

Well I'd say it wouldn't be too hard to find out really. You see a lot of video card reviews where AMD vs. Nvidia and you have the low average and max fps per test. The thing is if you were to do these tests with AMD and then with a Intel chip you'd see which ran the most consistant. The thing is it's really not fair running a 9950 against Intels high end cause I'm sorry theres no way in hell it can compete with a Q9950 or higher, it would be fair running high end vs. high end. But even so its hard all you could do really is clock a older Intel Quad against a Phenom at the same clock speed. It would be interesting to look for but this review of 100 cpus does a good job http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/1...urs/page29.php
I guess a Q8200 is pretty much on par with a 9950 in games so cant beat low end Intel in gaming.
Microsoft Exel AMD loses again so if you want to talk about desktop smoothness wouldn't you see it in this?
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/1...urs/page13.php
And again in photoshop another proggie AMDs highend loses out to a Q8200
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/1...urs/page14.php
Multithreaded WAV>MP3 again same thing http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/1...urs/page23.php

So I'm not saying AMD is bad, or can't have potential for running smoother based on whatever architecture they use but don't you think even in software that isn't gaming you would see them come out ahead? Being more efficient would also equal being faster in terms of processor calculations would it not.

At heart I'm a AMD guy but don't shoot the messenger when people are still in some sort of AM2+ denial. I have hated AM2 ever since they jumped from 939 so I can't say I'm really sad to see it come up with nothing. I'm jumping right back to AMD as soon as I can but I think it would just be rediculous to not acknowledge Intel winning this round, not to mention with obvious wins in desktop based programs and very commonly used programs as well AMD just does not take the lead. Personally I think more people should be worried about Price:Performance rather than what color the box is.

It is interesting how some people just jump in and immediately dismiss the concept. They haven't seen it so it does not exist. End of story. (Or they dismiss it because they believe it is somehow a tactic used to justify something and not something that many people have experienced.)

Yet the topic is raised by a large number of different people on a lot of different forums. That fact alone means that it would be foolish to dismiss the concept without further investigation.

The people that do not question this concept are the ones that have experienced it. They do not question that such a thing exists. They only question HOW MUCH of it exists.

This topic came up about half a year ago. The same thing happened. People split into a group of people that just want to ridicule it and pretend it doesn't exist post and a group of a few people that post about various experiences they have had.

The discussion was derailed by the detractors. Apparently they have some reason that makes them really not want people to discuss this issue; they often use ridiculous arguments to get people to stop talking about it. I'm getting tired of that tactic. If you don't believe it exists... that is your "right". But if that is the case you have no reason to post anything in this thread. Period. QED.

I think it would be nice to actually discuss methods that might be used to measure such a system attribute and stop all the juvenile bickering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

It is interesting how some people just jump in and immediately dismiss the concept. They haven't seen it so it does not exist. End of story. (Or they dismiss it because they believe it is somehow a tactic used to justify something and not something that many people have experienced.)

Yet the topic is raised by a large number of different people on a lot of different forums. That fact alone means that it would be foolish to dismiss the concept without further investigation.

The people that do not question this concept are the ones that have experienced it. They do not question that such a thing exists. They only question HOW MUCH of it exists.

This topic came up about half a year ago. The same thing happened. People split into a group of people that just want to ridicule it and pretend it doesn't exist post and a group of a few people that post about various experiences they have had.

The discussion was derailed by the detractors. Apparently they have some reason that makes them really not want people to discuss this issue; they often use ridiculous arguments to get people to stop talking about it. I'm getting tired of that tactic. If you don't believe it exists... that is your "right". But if that is the case you have no reason to post anything in this thread. Period. QED.

I think it would be nice to actually discuss methods that might be used to measure such a system attribute and stop all the juvenile bickering.

---

Alright I'll admit I like how my 939 handled better than my friends P4 but at the same time show me adequte proof. I'm an AMD guy but I'm gonna force a debate out of you guys with logical reasoning. Cause if its all just a visual thing than theres other things to take into account to. But seems very odd that the scores show 1 winner but another group seems to thing otherwise. Real tests are not showing in AMDs favor here you see what I'm saying. The only thing juvenile is people getting up in arms because people are asking for proof and the best people can offer is well its there cause I've seen it. uh huh... This usually comes from fanboys who don't have both rigs. I'd say invite some prominent extreme members with both systems and ask them to compare. The thing is if you have ever been in university is that you learn time and time again all tests and testers are always biased or have one bias towards something. So thats why these tests are good but the thing is the results don't really seem to backup the argument so far.

Get 2 systems running next to eachother and video tape them and maybe we'll have something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

See it's impossible to know really, look how bogged down this side of the forum is with AMD fanboys. You can scream at me till your blue in the face that AMD is smoother but look at video card reviews, people want to see cards running at their max well obviously they aren't picking AMD as of late.

---

there are many intel fanboys as well but that has nothing to do with the topic. :confused:and yes people use intel in video card reviews. why? because in video card reviews you make graphs to show fps. if intel gives more fps then the graph will show that the card has a higher fps. video card reviews have nothing to do with the smoothness of a cpu. most people are trying to show that the latest card has the highest fps as possible so people will buy them.

Quote:

---

Well I'd say it wouldn't be too hard to find out really. You see a lot of video card reviews where AMD vs. Nvidia and you have the low average and max fps per test. The thing is if you were to do these tests with AMD and then with a Intel chip you'd see which ran the most consistant. The thing is it's really not fair running a 9950 against Intels high end cause I'm sorry theres no way in hell it can compete with a Q9950 or higher, it would be fair running high end vs. high end. But even so its hard all you could do really is clock a older Intel Quad against a Phenom at the same clock speed. It would be interesting to look for but this review of 100 cpus does a good job http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/1...urs/page29.php
I guess a Q8200 is pretty much on par with a 9950 in games so cant beat low end Intel in gaming.
Microsoft Exel AMD loses again so if you want to talk about desktop smoothness wouldn't you see it in this?
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/1...urs/page13.php
And again in photoshop another proggie AMDs highend loses out to a Q8200
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/1...urs/page14.php
Multithreaded WAV>MP3 again same thing http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/1...urs/page23.php

So I'm not saying AMD is bad, or can't have potential for running smoother based on whatever architecture they use but don't you think even in software that isn't gaming you would see them come out ahead? Being more efficient would also equal being faster in terms of processor calculations would it not.

At heart I'm a AMD guy but don't shoot the messenger when people are still in some sort of AM2+ denial. I have hated AM2 ever since they jumped from 939 so I can't say I'm really sad to see it come up with nothing. I'm jumping right back to AMD as soon as I can but I think it would just be rediculous to not acknowledge Intel winning this round, not to mention with obvious wins in desktop based programs and very commonly used programs as well AMD just does not take the lead. Personally I think more people should be worried about Price:Performance rather than what color the box is.

---

i think you are forgetting the point. i am talking about smoothness here. not how fast a task can finish that has absolutely nothing to do with how smooth it is. and i am not talking about min and max fps either. what does that have to do with it? lets say you have an amd getting a max of 50 fps and a min of 40 fps and an average of 45 fps. then you have an intel getting a max of 70 fps and a min of 45 fps and an average of 50 fps. how big of a change is the drop from 70 fps to 45 fps going to be? you will be able to tell thats for sure. even if the amd has a lower minimum fps and a lower maximum if it can keep the frames coming out at a more consistent pace and within a reasonable amount of the intel cpu it should be smoother. its not like its that easy of a test to find out which is smoother. the only info we have right now are neutral people saying that amd is smoother when they have tested them side by side and some people switching to amd because they think its smoother. unless you can have some info to disprove this i don't know what you are trying to say. just because one gets a higher ammount of fps doesn't mean it will be smoother. especially if the fps changes around by a dramatic amount. only way i can think of testing this is by taking fps measurements at many different intervals and comparing them. because by comparing max fps average fps and min fps there is no way to tell which one is smoother.

only thing I want to know is why phenom gpu scores are higher then Intel cpu's in 3dmark06 ?
(in tony's thread using an 8800 utlra and clockign phenom to 3.2ghz and Q9650 to 3.2ghz)
cpu scores are lower for phenom sure but if intel cpu scores are higher should not the gpu scores be higher too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demonkevy666

only thing I want to know is why phenom gpu scores are higher then Intel cpu's in 3dmark06 ?
(in tony's thread using an 8800 utlra and clockign phenom to 3.2ghz and Q9650 to 3.2ghz)
cpu scores are lower for phenom sure but if intel cpu scores are higher should not the gpu scores be higher too?

---

i have wondered the same myself but im not exactly sure how it calculates the different scores. i know there are calculators for the overall score but what makes up the individual scores?

I'm not sure exactly why amd is smoother, maybe it's the imc or the ht system. I think Gosh is on to something when he says that the fsb is somehow causing the lag on intel systems. intel created i7 for a reason :p:

If i could could afford it i would love to build an i7 rig, best of both worlds, speed and smoothness :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rk7p5

I'm not sure exactly why amd is smoother, maybe it's the imc or the ht system. I think Gosh is on to something when he says that the fsb is somehow causing the lag on intel systems. intel created i7 for a reason :p:

If i could could afford it i would love to build an i7 rig, best of both worlds, speed and smoothness :D

---

i have said before that i believe it is because of the fast I/O speeds of of the cpu. theres a quote of me in the first post. i just don't know how you can prove it but ill try to find a way.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=24
toppc covered up the fps of each individual test but it would be very interesting to see if i7 got higher fps on every gpu test and if amd got lower fps on every gpu test because then we know that 3d mark doesn't base the scores on fps alone and it might base them on something like smoothness. :shrug:

edit: something i remember from awhile back: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...+phenom&page=4
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...7&postcount=98

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

i think you are forgetting the point. i am talking about smoothness here. not how fast a task can finish that has absolutely nothing to do with how smooth it is. and i am not talking about min and max fps either. what does that have to do with it? lets say you have an amd getting a max of 50 fps and a min of 40 fps and an average of 45 fps. then you have an intel getting a max of 70 fps and a min of 45 fps and an average of 50 fps. how big of a change is the drop from 70 fps to 45 fps going to be? you will be able to tell thats for sure. even if the amd has a lower minimum fps and a lower maximum if it can keep the frames coming out at a more consistent pace and within a reasonable amount of the intel cpu it should be smoother.

---

But this is not a case of AMD being smoother or more consistent, it is a case of AMD being slower and therefore unable to push to the same frame rates when the situations switches to be more CPU limiting. Using your criteria, a Phenom 9400 would be even smoother and consistent than a Phenom 9950 as the Phenom 9400, while reaching roughly the same minimum frame rate when GPU limited, would be unable to hit the same maximum frame rate when CPU limited.

Quote:

---

only way i can think of testing this is by taking fps measurements at many different intervals and comparing them. because by comparing max fps average fps and min fps there is no way to tell which one is smoother.

---

JumpingJack has done some investigation into this matter using his own QX9650, Phenom 9850 and 4870X2 and posted results in this thread:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...d.php?t=197423

Here are the direct links to some of the results that provide a frame rate plot over time:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...&postcount=235
http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...&postcount=285
http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...&postcount=364
http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...&postcount=391

This is strictly my own personal opinion.

I've had a Q6600@3.5ghz on a DFI board for about a year now. I also have a Phenom 9850@3.0ghz on an Asus M3A79-T mobo. Contrary to what anyone tries to tell me, the Phenom rig just seems to run better/smoother. Maybe it's a placebo effect, maybe it isn't. I can only go by what my instinct is telling me. I use the 9850 as my daily rig while the Q6600 sits folding away in my basement now.

Simple.. Intel is like running a game 100+ fps with V-Sync Off while AMD is like running a game with V-Sync On 60fps.

When i play games @ 100+fps V-Sync off it seems jerky to me & that's why i play all my games with V-Sync on even tho its only 60fps its smoother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

But this is not a case of AMD being smoother or more consistent, it is a case of AMD being slower and therefore unable to push to the same frame rates when the situations switches to be more CPU limiting. Using your criteria, a Phenom 9400 would be even smoother and consistent than a Phenom 9950 as the Phenom 9400, while reaching roughly the same minimum frame rate when GPU limited, would be unable to hit the same maximum frame rate when CPU limited.



JumpingJack has done some investigation into this matter using his own QX9650, Phenom 9850 and 4870X2 and posted results in this thread:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...d.php?t=197423

Here are the direct links to some of the results that provide a frame rate plot over time:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...&postcount=235
http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...&postcount=285
http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...&postcount=364
http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...&postcount=391

---

those still have nothing to do with smoothness. they are all completely fps based. sure the first one where the fps are above 60 for the intel its going to stay smooth because it is capped at 60 fps because of vsync. in that situation the intel will be smoother purely because of vsync. turn vsync off and it won't be nearly as smooth. plus as the resolution gets higher and the graphics get more intense the amd system has higher fps plus it comes out at a more consistent rate. i think people are failing to realize that fps isn't the only thing that creates smooth gameplay.

I don't think you can run a game benchmark on the two systems and compare the min, max, and average FPS. That won't really show anything since the systems are not really stressed in that situation. You need to add stress.

If you do the same benchmark with OTHER things taxing and stressing the systems you should expect a decrease in both systems. The question would be whether or not the decrease is equal for both systems.

If the decrease is equal for both systems then the "smoothness" factor is debunked. But if the performance drops more suddenly on one system and is more gradual on the other system... then that could prove not only the existence of the smoothness factor but could also be measured.

AND who is to say that it won't be Intel with the more gradual decrease and AMD dropping suddenly? (Assuming they are not equal.)

ANWAY: The problem is determining some kind of various tasks that can be run while doing the other benchmark that will equally stress various resources in the system. I have seen a few people try gaming while running a virus scanner and that wasn't enough to really affect the system enough to make a determination. We need to determine various tasks that will eat away at certain resources until we get results or completely debunk the concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

those still have nothing to do with smoothness. they are all completely fps based.

---

They are what you asked for, which are plots of the instantaneous FPS at regular and frequent intervals during a benchmark run.

not really i want more realistic measures. fps 100-600 are pointless need more realistic measures. but they do show a little bit that the phenom 9850 doesn't have as many dramatic changes which should give a smoother effect. and the wic one doesn't work at all because v sync is on.

after owning a core 2 duo, a core 2 quad, a phenom 9850, and now a core i7 I personally saw absolutely nothing smoother about the amd setup over the intel setup. I actually never noticed the difference going from one cpu to the next.

I own both a Q9450 system and a Phenom 9600 system. Even the Q9450 at 3.8ghz (currently 483x8) doesn't run that well at the desktop. Whenever the computer starts up, there is this period that you can't do anything for like 30 seconds. Like I try and open cpu-z, the loader just sits there for a while. Speedfan hangs for a while. Just nothing runs. I even noticed this on my E6600 system back when I used it with an Asus Striker and had it on the vapo and it clocked to 3.9ghz, there was a time at startup that nothing worked. Now on the Phenom system, it might be hard to believe, but I've never had that problem except with super-pi, which to get it to run then it needs the affinity set.

As for smoother at the desktop, I would imagine that meaning that switching between windows, and responsiveness while burning a cd or something of that nature. Personally I put that in the category of multitasking smoothly, but generalizing it to just smoother still works.

personal opinions most likely aren't going to get anything accomplished here. this is the amd section afterall im sure if u posted in the intel section most would say bs. anyone have any ideas for testing methods?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

personal opinions most likely aren't going to get anything accomplished here. this is the amd section afterall im sure if u posted in the intel section most would say bs. anyone have any ideas for testing methods?

---

To do it scientifically we need to list the various different types of resources. Then we need to identify applications that would stress each one of these various systems.

After we know those things we can then systematically run these things one at a time WITH some other particular benchmark.

EXAMPLES:
1. Run benchmark.
2. Run benchmark with 4xPrime95.
3. Run benchmark with Virus scan or defrag.
4. Run benchmark while compressing.
5. Run benchmark while encoding.
<you get the idea... add more to the list as needed>

The basic test routine listed above is simple. But what if you do all of the above and you don't get anything that really makes a huge difference? Does that mean that the effort was wasted?

NO. Because then you start running more than one thing at a time. Using this process one could eventually find a combination that would work. Or maybe not.

The best part is now we don't only have the Intel FSB vs AMD IMC. Now we also have the i7 to add to the testing. There has not been a lot of motivation to complete this type of testing in the past. But in the future I predict that this type of test WILL become popular with Intel benchmarkers that have both Intel FSB and Intel i7 chips. (A side effect will be that the AMD will also be shown to be better.)

I have been in a discussion about this very issue where a poster basically came up with: "That is worthless because you are only looking for something that AMD does well." But does that really matter? If it ends up being something that can be tested and measured then it is REAL. If it doesn't provide end results then it wouldn't matter anyway. (But I have to question why so many posters on various forums seem to not want to see the results of this kind of test. Are they worried about the results?)

i agree amd seems smoother... in fact i had posted a thread on this earlier too asking whether it was just me or did other people notice it too. :)

I have never used a system I can fully call smooth. Of course, I'm one of those exotic people in AMD land that hasn't touched a Phenom yet. (:()


(Helped assemble a Q6600 for a friend, Windows clean slate was snappy, not sure about now)

Now I am sitting on the portable (C2D) and just did a simple test.

1: move the mouse from side to side on the screen with no other applications running. No problem of course.
2: Started one compilation in visual studio, and moved the mouse from side to side on the screen. Now the mouse starts to “disappear”. The mouse pointer freezes and shows up in another place, you need to look for the mouse pointer where it is. It doesn't happen that often but it happens.
3: Started two compilations the behavior is now much more common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

1: move the mouse from side to side on the screen with no other applications running. No problem of course.
2: Started one compilation in visual studio, and moved the mouse from side to side on the screen. Now the mouse starts to “disappear”. The mouse pointer freezes and shows up in another place, you need to look for the mouse pointer where it is. It doesn't happen that often but it happens.
3: Started two compilations the behavior is now much more common.

---

Sounds like you have an issue with the hard drive; the symptoms suggest that your hard drive isn't in UDMA or AHCI mode. But definitely not a CPU issue.

[QUOTE=keithlm;3543819]To do it scientifically we need to list the various different types of resources. Then we need to identify applications that would stress each one of these various systems.

After we know those things we can then systematically run these things one at a time WITH some other particular benchmark.

EXAMPLES:
1. Run benchmark.
2. Run benchmark with 4xPrime95.
3. Run benchmark with Virus scan or defrag.
4. Run benchmark while compressing.
5. Run benchmark while encoding.
<you get the idea... add more to the list as needed>



i wud suggest this one instead:
1. game1 benchmark.
2. game1 benchmark with game2
3. game1 benchmark with game2 and game3
4. game1 benchmark with game2 and game3 and game4 ....

rinse and repeat.
1. game2 benchmark
2. game2 benchmark with game1...etc etc.

more fun:)

From what i have seen in this thread.

On avg, Users currently with AMD believe the possibility of smoother AMD
On avg, Users currently with AMD & Intel believe the possibility of smoother AMD
On avg, Users currently with Intel don't believe the possibility of smoother AMD & want a multitude of test to prove that AMD is not smoother & if its shows anything smoother then the Intel set-up must have something wrong with it..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wiggy McShades

after owning a core 2 duo, a core 2 quad, a phenom 9850, and now a core i7 I personally saw absolutely nothing smoother about the amd setup over the intel setup. I actually never noticed the difference going from one cpu to the next.

---

tell that the guys "who are seeing things" ;)
Im in the same boat as you are. Ever since the switch to dualcores i noticed no more increase in "smoothness" over the time.

riped from the review thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

I'm sure this whole "smoothness" thing would be a lot easier to sell to an engineer at a server OEM- they work on a little bit different platfom integration level than just slapping some crap together and shooting zombies ;)

---

Sure, but you dont hear such comments form that crowd. Its the gamers that claim its "more smoother." :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

Regardless of whether you believe it has an effect on gaming or not, intel and AMD platforms running specific applications differently is a FACT, not a MYTH.

---

I dont deny that, every architecture has its strengh and weaknesses, just look at archivers, ever since AMD introduced its IMC it was king in such apps that needed a lot of bandwidth. Thats a fact and can be proven by numbers and data.


Imho "smoothness" is the same as with the "noone needs more then 30fps".
Some guys see it, some guys dont, you cant quantify things that rely on human perception, regardless of how sophisticated your test suite, measurment gear, data loging etc. is, noone has succeded to factor in human perception off certain things till now. :up:

Addition:

Thats also why the whole benches will fail, the only thing i have seen here has nothing to do with smoothness rather then how good the cpu or more like the os can handle/manage multiple threads with heavy load.

this is a example:
[QUOTE=sundancerx;3544242]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

EXAMPLES:
1. Run benchmark.
2. Run benchmark with 4xPrime95.
3. Run benchmark with Virus scan or defrag.
4. Run benchmark while compressing.
5. Run benchmark while encoding.

---

The second test don't really tells you anything about smoothness, but rather how good the os is in allocating processor time. If the priority of the benchmark and prime is the same, you loose fps. But if the priority of the benchmark is higher then for prime it will run faster (but still slower as if would run without prime in the backround).

Same goes for test 3, but now the dominant factor is the HDD, a 6ms VR would fell much "smoother" then a standard 12ms HDD, with that test your really benching your HDD and not the CPU. Also depending on the benchmark, you wouldn't even notice any drops at all.

Same for the other 2 scenarios, your testing the cpu while one subsystem is beeing stressed and turned into a bottleneck.

Imho the biggest problem is, that there is no explicit definition for "smoothness". It not possible to test for something if the objective is not clear in the first place.

What we need is a piece of software that will launch multiple apps at one time and messure the load times in millisecs. Then run this bench on equal speed CPU's, same ram, same non-raid HDD with fresh OS.

I bet one of these great coders here could wip something up like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

Now I am sitting on the portable (C2D) and just did a simple test.

1: move the mouse from side to side on the screen with no other applications running. No problem of course.
2: Started one compilation in visual studio, and moved the mouse from side to side on the screen. Now the mouse starts to “disappear”. The mouse pointer freezes and shows up in another place, you need to look for the mouse pointer where it is. It doesn't happen that often but it happens.
3: Started two compilations the behavior is now much more common.

---

LOL a portavke c2d okay get a portable AMD chip, with the same video card, same ram, same screen. LOL man these tests are dumb.

Thank you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

JumpingJack has done some investigation into this matter using his own QX9650, Phenom 9850 and 4870X2 and posted results in this thread:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...d.php?t=197423

Here are the direct links to some of the results that provide a frame rate plot over time:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...&postcount=235
http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...&postcount=285
http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...&postcount=364
http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...&postcount=391

---

Yeah so its funny to see the AMD fanbois who usually debate with dellusion still fighting against this one. AMD gets blown out of the water here but yet its still smoother. I find it hard to believe a cpu that a cpu who gives half the fps can produce a smoother result considering how much work its trying to do, where as the other is doing it all with massive overkill. Just doesn't make sense. Being able to run your mouse back and forth smoother lol wowza grasping at straws hardcore especially when a bazillion options come into play. Really only way you guys are going to end this is by putting 2 systems next to each other with same with the same exact componants even the monitor except for the cpu and motherboard. Doesn't make sense to test on a lesser monitor or one with a crappier video card ect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

But this is not a case of AMD being smoother or more consistent, it is a case of AMD being slower and therefore unable to push to the same frame rates when the situations switches to be more CPU limiting. Using your criteria, a Phenom 9400 would be even smoother and consistent than a Phenom 9950 as the Phenom 9400, while reaching roughly the same minimum frame rate when GPU limited, would be unable to hit the same maximum frame rate when CPU limited.



JumpingJack has done some investigation into this matter using his own QX9650, Phenom 9850 and 4870X2 and posted results in this thread:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...d.php?t=197423

Here are the direct links to some of the results that provide a frame rate plot over time:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...&postcount=235
http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...&postcount=285
http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...&postcount=364
http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...&postcount=391

---

did anyone noticed in that thread that the one game screen shots that where taken at the same spot and same time show different minor details ?

like the rock was a totally different shape lol, it should be the same shape on both systems??? why is not the same ????

as viewing as screen a whole it would look the same up, but if you look for every detail it's not the same.

I dunno all my sytems have run smooth, it's called system mechanic :ROTF:

I use a 2x2 Intel CPU at work and a 9850 at home. It's honestly really hard to tell sometimes where the hiccups on the work machine come from. There is so much stuff loaded on my desktop at the office; an old version of Symantec, various client-monitoring stuff, etc. Not to mention that my home machine runs Vista 64 and my work runs Server 2003. Too many variables to compare apples to apples.

Having said that, subjectively speaking, I have noticed a difference in the "smoothness" as well... I wonder if it's chipset related?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

Now I am sitting on the portable (C2D) and just did a simple test.

1: move the mouse from side to side on the screen with no other applications running. No problem of course.
2: Started one compilation in visual studio, and moved the mouse from side to side on the screen. Now the mouse starts to “disappear”. The mouse pointer freezes and shows up in another place, you need to look for the mouse pointer where it is. It doesn't happen that often but it happens.
3: Started two compilations the behavior is now much more common.

---

Glow9 has already answered (quite harshly). :)

I see you (and others) repeat these arguments.

I hope you (all) see the epic failure in such arguments.

1st:
Most of you "hate" Intel for some reason.
2snd:
Most of you only own/use/care about tuning an AMD rig.
3rd:
You *must* comprehend that a "smoothness" test ideally will mean identical hardware apart from CPU (motherboard with similar chipset).

Sidenote:
Using a "lappie" with C2D as "proof" even make your arguments even more epic.

When I had S754, S939, S478 and S775 (at the same time), the best benches was on the AMD rigs.
The Intel systems with HT CPU's *appeared* smoother - for me.
Smoother does not mean hourglass/pointer, but switchin/starting apps.

Current rigs (C2D/C2Q/S775 and several AM2\X2 rigs) I cannot see any big difference in "smoothness".
The "worst" rig though is the one I am writing from now.
Gigabyte GA-MA69G-S3H(RS690/SB600) & X2 6000+.
I will *not* conclude this is related to the CPU/chipset, but a XP install upgraded from S939. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final8ty

On avg, Users currently with Intel don't believe the possibility of smoother AMD & want a multitude of test to prove that AMD is not smoother & if its shows anything smoother then the Intel set-up must have something wrong with it..

---

No, actually it is AMD users want a multitude of tests so that they can say: "Look: we can MEASURE this difference. Stop telling us that it doesn't exist." (And as I've said before: it will eventually be IMC users against FSB users. This won't just be Intel vs AMD. When the i7 owners get through the honeymoon period this subject will rear it's ugly head in the Intel forums when they get tired of FSB users screaming about how their chips work better and there is no reason to update to i7.)

The problem is that many people want to just dismiss the notion out of hand or ridicule it because they do not want it to be something that is actually true. They are basically saying: "We don't want that to be true so therefore we can't comprehend how it could be true." They are unwilling to actually consider that using various methods it might actually be something measurable. Because of this they pop into threads like this and do anything they can to sabotage the thread.

I'm sure that this thread will eventually die just like every thread I've ever seen about it. What happens is that enough of the nay-sayers come and sabotage the thread to the point that the people that actually know there is a difference just give up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TL1000S

Glow9 has already answered (quite harshly). :)

I see you (and others) repeat these arguments.

I hope you (all) see the epic failure in such arguments.

1st:
Most of you "hate" Intel for some reason.
2snd:
Most of you only own/use/care about tuning an AMD rig.
3rd:
You *must* comprehend that a "smoothness" test ideally will mean identical hardware apart from CPU (motherboard with similar chipset).

Sidenote:
Using a "lappie" with C2D as "proof" even make your arguments even more epic.

When I had S754, S939, S478 and S775 (at the same time), the best benches was on the AMD rigs.
The Intel systems with HT CPU's *appeared* smoother - for me.
Smoother does not mean hourglass/pointer, but switchin/starting apps.

Current rigs (C2D/C2Q/S775 and several AM2\X2 rigs) I cannot see any big difference in "smoothness".
The "worst" rig though is the one I am writing from now.
Gigabyte GA-MA69G-S3H(RS690/SB600) & X2 6000+.
I will *not* conclude this is related to the CPU/chipset, but a XP install upgraded from S939. :)

---

what dose X2 and core 2 duo have to do with this thread ?

I though this was about core 2 quad vs phenom

my argument is a ratio 15:50 30:75.

how much slower amd is to intel: how much more cache intel uses

I am pro AMD, but haven't said it's smoother.

I've never gotten the chance to use a core 2 quad yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TL1000S

I hope you (all) see the epic failure in such arguments.

---

The only epic fail I see is people that are not willing to test to see if this is something concrete that can be measured.

Why? What are you scared of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

No, actually it is AMD users want a multitude of tests so that they can say: "Look: we can MEASURE this difference. Stop telling us that it doesn't exist." (And as I've said before: it will eventually be IMC users against FSB users. This won't just be Intel vs AMD. When the i7 owners get through the honeymoon period this subject will rear it's ugly head in the Intel forums when they get tired of FSB users screaming about how their chips work better and there is no reason to update to i7.)

The problem is that many people want to just dismiss the notion out of hand or ridicule it because they do not want it to be something that is actually true. They are basically saying: "We don't want that to be true so therefore we can't comprehend how it could be true." They are unwilling to actually consider that using various methods it might actually be something measurable. Because of this they pop into threads like this and do anything they can to sabotage the thread.

I'm sure that this thread will eventually die just like every thread I've ever seen about it. What happens is that enough of the nay-sayers come and sabotage the thread to the point that the people that actually know there is a difference just give up.

---

Agreed.

@ Glow9 try to post with out the word Fanboy.
Its not a Requirement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Imho the biggest problem is, that there is no explicit definition for "smoothness". It not possible to test for something if the objective is not clear in the first place.

---

Hello... is there anybody in there?

What do you think this thread is about? It is about clarifying that definition AND finding a way to measure it. This isn't really a thread for Intel fans to come and make fun of AMD fans because they see a difference and actually want to know what causes that difference.

Let me review:

Many people believe that something exists that causes a noticeable difference. Many of these people are timid to post anything because they they see too many people being slammed and flamed for even mentioning it.

I see another group that doesn't believe it and doesn't want anyone else to believe it so they ridicule anyone that even attempts to question that opinion or attempts to quest for a method find out the truth.

Let me be more specific: You will not stop us from seeking the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TL1000S

Glow9 has already answered (quite harshly). :)

I see you (and others) repeat these arguments.

I hope you (all) see the epic failure in such arguments.

1st:
Most of you "hate" Intel for some reason.
2snd:
Most of you only own/use/care about tuning an AMD rig.
3rd:
You *must* comprehend that a "smoothness" test ideally will mean identical hardware apart from CPU (motherboard with similar chipset).

Sidenote:
Using a "lappie" with C2D as "proof" even make your arguments even more epic.

When I had S754, S939, S478 and S775 (at the same time), the best benches was on the AMD rigs.
The Intel systems with HT CPU's *appeared* smoother - for me.
Smoother does not mean hourglass/pointer, but switchin/starting apps.

Current rigs (C2D/C2Q/S775 and several AM2\X2 rigs) I cannot see any big difference in "smoothness".
The "worst" rig though is the one I am writing from now.
Gigabyte GA-MA69G-S3H(RS690/SB600) & X2 6000+.
I will *not* conclude this is related to the CPU/chipset, but a XP install upgraded from S939. :)

---

Not to sure about the most hate Intel as there are technical differences to take into consideration.

I was going Intel with the i7 with its IMC that i prefer but the price of the unlocked multi's has really put me off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

Hello... is there anybody in there?

What do you think this thread is about? It is about clarifying that definition AND finding a way to measure it. This isn't really a thread for Intel fans to come and make fun of AMD fans because they see a difference and actually want to know what causes that difference.

Let me review:

Many people believe that something exists that causes a noticeable difference. Many of these people are timid to post anything because they they see too many people being slammed and flamed for even mentioning it.

I see another group that doesn't believe it and doesn't want anyone else to believe it so they ridicule anyone that even attempts to question that opinion or attempts to quest for a method find out the truth.

Let me be more specific: You will not stop us from seeking the truth.

---

Damn! I wish i could put things that way.

It's rather simple guys, the phenomenon you are trying to measure did not exist pre 939. In fact it was present with intel back then. I think it was hyperthreading back then. With amd its hypertransport. Most of you guys including me has not used C I7 so your experiences in the past are negligible. I'ts not that hard, its hypertransport, and with intels new cpu's they probably feel equally as smooth with hyperthreading again.

All you really need is a program to measure chipset performance to and from CPU, to and from GPU and 2 and from SB and possibly a combination of all 3.


Little tip , If you want lets say games for instance to be smooth just lock your FPS at a rate your system can manage stably.........for those with LCD monitors 60fps is a good place to lock if the system is capable of it. People who game competitively/professionally never ever leave fps rate uncapped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TL1000S

1st:
Most of you "hate" Intel for some reason.
2snd:
Most of you only own/use/care about tuning an AMD rig.
3rd:
You *must* comprehend that a "smoothness" test ideally will mean identical hardware apart from CPU (motherboard with similar chipset).

---

I think the answer is much more logical. There exist a cheap processor that is more pleasant to work with.
Regarding harddrive problems. Don't think this is the problem. Have tried three hardrives, all with 7200 rpm and one of those was a fast external with eSATA. of course you will not notice this very short freezing if just the processor spins, as long as the data is in the cpu for intel then it is fast. It is probably a communication thing.

Guys, there is realy nothing more to say about this subject. I am one of many who has noticed this but I also know that until somebody posts some benchs or proof of some kind this is gonna be nothing but ............"Yes I do", "No you dont", "yes I do", "no you dont", "yes i....................This will be a thread that is nothing but bickering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck

Guys, there is realy nothing more to say about this subject. I am one of many who has noticed this but I also know that until somebody posts some benchs or proof of some kind this is gonna be nothing but ............"Yes I do", "No you dont", "yes I do", "no you dont", "yes i....................This will be a thread that is nothing but bickering.

---

Ah but that is the problem. How can we have a discussion of HOW to measure or clarify the definition of this concept when all we get is a bunch of people flaming and trolling because they have some reason to not want the discussion to take place?

SO in fact they are being successful in their goal. (The goal being to make sure nobody actually does find out if this is something that is measurable.)

But I still believe it will end up coming out in the end because of the i7. People with i7's are eventually going to ascribe to this concept. (They will most likely come up with another word or term to describe it because the "smoothness" term has been ridiculed too much; probably often by them before they owned i7's.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

Sounds like you have an issue with the hard drive; the symptoms suggest that your hard drive isn't in UDMA or AHCI mode. But definitely not a CPU issue.

---

i don't think the hdd is the problem every single time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck

What we need is a piece of software that will launch multiple apps at one time and messure the load times in millisecs. Then run this bench on equal speed CPU's, same ram, same non-raid HDD with fresh OS.

I bet one of these great coders here could wip something up like this.

---

its more than just load times to find a way to test this it will be really complicated. although i do think that just looking at the changes in fps during a game can tell a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

LOL a portavke c2d okay get a portable AMD chip, with the same video card, same ram, same screen. LOL man these tests are dumb.

Thank you!
Yeah so its funny to see the AMD fanbois who usually debate with dellusion still fighting against this one. AMD gets blown out of the water here but yet its still smoother. I find it hard to believe a cpu that a cpu who gives half the fps can produce a smoother result considering how much work its trying to do, where as the other is doing it all with massive overkill. Just doesn't make sense. Being able to run your mouse back and forth smoother lol wowza grasping at straws hardcore especially when a bazillion options come into play. Really only way you guys are going to end this is by putting 2 systems next to each other with same with the same exact componants even the monitor except for the cpu and motherboard. Doesn't make sense to test on a lesser monitor or one with a crappier video card ect.

---

ummmmmm what is anyone fighting? i just see it as common sense that fps isn't the only thing that decides smoothness. fps = frames per second. thats the amount of video frames in a second. you can pump out a lot of frames in a second but display them at unequal rates and its not smooth. isn't that just common sense? and where is this cpu and a cpu that gives half the fps? in those tests we are seeing huge fps numbers some around 600 fps. none of those are going to look smooth at all because of tearing on the monitor. and then if you turn v sync on they will look equal. again this is not about fps its about smoothness. and roflmao how many times have i said that the people that have tested this have had them both side by side and have thought one was smoother. many people in this thread are saying yea i feel like my phenom is faster but that means nothing. im saying there are people out there that are completely neutral and don't fall to one side that have tested them together and chosen the amd as the faster one. the architecture of the cpu then supports this by showing that there is such a low latency on the cpu that it can display frames at a smooth rate. im getting tired of intel fanboys and such close minded people coming in here and just saying o thats not true without any facts at all or anything to back it up. they will usually respond saying the intel has a higher fps so no doubt its faster. if you really believe that it would be faster for that reason alone then im sorry theres no help for you. or they will say well its the hdds fault or its the rams fault or something else. when the systems are the exact same whos fault is it? people have compared it side by side, they have switched out every single part and put it back together again with the only differences being the motherboard and the cpu. theres plenty of proof showing that this could be true so the fact that you think you can come in here and just ummmmm no thats not true is not getting anythign accomplished. at this point we are trying to find a good way to test it so if you really want to find out then how about not posting at all or just have an open mind.

This whole thread itself is considered as Epic Fail... as well as the advocates of "smoothness"... :D

The "Smoothness" thing is really subjective. At the end of the day performance is all it counts... Yes, I know what you meant by "smoothness".. actually I would prefer to call it RESPONSIVENESS.

Back then during the K6-III 450MHz days, that rig was able to boot up faster than my PII @450MHz.. surprise surprise.. why? Its because of the VIA chipset, even on Intel systems VIA chipsets boots faster than Intel's own chipsets. At the end of the day, performance counts... The K6 had problems running DVD videos smoothly (it was jerky all over the place) while my PII was fine and dandy even when I revert back to stock 300MHz.

The came the P4 and Athlon days. Again I noticed those AMD systems boots up faster.. and that's about it! I had an Athlon 3000+ and Pentium4 HT 2.8GHz... guess which one is more RESPONSIVE, should I say SMOOTHER? The Pentium4 HT! Yes its true, the slower Pentium4 HT was "smoother"! However it was the Athlon 3000+ which is always faster when it came to gaming. Even AMD-owning friends thought the same thing when they used my P4 machine during those LAN gaming parties.

At the end of the day, its performance that counts... not "smoothness":rofl:

Unfortunately this subject is subjective and there's no way to quantify something that's subjective. It's equivalent to trying to scientifically prove that God doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghostbuster

This whole thread itself is considered as Epic Fail... as well as the advocates of "smoothness"... :D

The "Smoothness" thing is really subjective. At the end of the day performance is all it counts... Yes, I know what you meant by "smoothness".. actually I would prefer to call it RESPONSIVENESS.

Back then during the K6-III 450MHz days, that rig was able to boot up faster than my PII @450MHz.. surprise surprise.. why? Its because of the VIA chipset, even on Intel systems VIA chipsets boots faster than Intel's own chipsets. At the end of the day, performance counts... The K6 had problems running DVD videos smoothly (it was jerky all over the place) while my PII was fine and dandy even when I revert back to stock 300MHz.

The came the P4 and Athlon days. Again I noticed those AMD systems boots up faster.. and that's about it! I had an Athlon 3000+ and Pentium4 HT 2.8GHz... guess which one is more RESPONSIVE, should I say SMOOTHER? The Pentium4 HT! Yes its true, the slower Pentium4 HT was "smoother"! However it was the Athlon 3000+ which is always faster when it came to gaming. Even AMD-owning friends thought the same thing when they used my P4 machine during those LAN gaming parties.

At the end of the day, its performance that counts... not "smoothness":rofl:

---

This all makes a valid point exept for the bolded part. You cannot speak for everyone with that statement. Performance is all that matters to you, and basicly thats all that maters to me but that dont mean for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghostbuster

This whole thread itself is considered as Epic Fail... as well as the advocates of "smoothness"... :D

The "Smoothness" thing is really subjective. At the end of the day performance is all it counts... Yes, I know what you meant by "smoothness".. actually I would prefer to call it RESPONSIVENESS.

Back then during the K6-III 450MHz days, that rig was able to boot up faster than my PII @450MHz.. surprise surprise.. why? Its because of the VIA chipset, even on Intel systems VIA chipsets boots faster than Intel's own chipsets. At the end of the day, performance counts... The K6 had problems running DVD videos smoothly (it was jerky all over the place) while my PII was fine and dandy even when I revert back to stock 300MHz.

The came the P4 and Athlon days. Again I noticed those AMD systems boots up faster.. and that's about it! I had an Athlon 3000+ and Pentium4 HT 2.8GHz... guess which one is more RESPONSIVE, should I say SMOOTHER? The Pentium4 HT! Yes its true, the slower Pentium4 HT was "smoother"! However it was the Athlon 3000+ which is always faster when it came to gaming. Even AMD-owning friends thought the same thing when they used my P4 machine during those LAN gaming parties.

At the end of the day, its performance that counts... not "smoothness":rofl:

---

and whats performance supposed to be? fps values? fine you can take 100 fps but every half a second the screen will freeze. ill be happy with my constant 60 fps. the fact is that if something doesn't PERFORM fast enough then it won't be smoother. can you please stop posting in this thread unless you have something legit to say. as i recall every single person that has posted in this thread and disproved it is currently running intel. if you have something worthwhile to the topic with some relative information then post it but last time i checked the topic had nothing to do with one cpu getting higher fps and then being faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

and whats performance supposed to be? fps values? fine you can take 100 fps but every half a second the screen will freeze. ill be happy with my constant 60 fps. the fact is that if something doesn't PERFORM fast enough then it won't be smoother. can you please stop posting in this thread unless you have something legit to say. as i recall every single person that has posted in this thread and disproved it is currently running intel. if you have something worthwhile to the topic with some relative information then post it but last time i checked the topic had nothing to do with one cpu getting higher fps and then being faster.

---

DANG. You beat me to it. Well said.

I rest my case with this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is7frW9Z-rw

"Smoothness" or "Responsiveness" :cool:

is there someone that has both intel and amd and thinks intel is smoother?

regarding all performance tests out there this should be much more common. I can't remember that I have seen anyone that has had that experiance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghostbuster

I rest my case with this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is7frW9Z-rw

"Smoothness" or "Responsiveness" :cool:

---

im a little confused here. no where does this show any smoothness. all it shows is that one thing can complete a task faster than another. what i am saying is that like when you are playing a game and you have two systems that are the exact same xcept for the mobo and the cpu and you test them together. one system might get higher fps values but its not necessarily smoother. right now all we have is info from many people saying that amd seems smoother even tho it doesn't get as high of fps values. and its coming from people that aren't biased to one side. so we are trying to get this information and test it. think of it like myth busters. and also i believe i don't think that they argue the entire time on that show either. they go out there and test it. we are trying to come up with a testing method and then we will try it out and see how it works. so i really don't understand why people in here keep posting showing information that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and then just disprove it. also that HT system was only faster because of the hdd and ram. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

im a little confused here. no where does this show any smoothness. all it shows is that one thing can complete a task faster than another. what i am saying is that like when you are playing a game and you have two systems that are the exact same xcept for the mobo and the cpu and you test them together. one system might get higher fps values but its not necessarily smoother. right now all we have is info from many people saying that amd seems smoother even tho it doesn't get as high of fps values. and its coming from people that aren't biased to one side. so we are trying to get this information and test it. think of it like myth busters. and also i believe i don't think that they argue the entire time on that show either. they go out there and test it. we are trying to come up with a testing method and then we will try it out and see how it works. so i really don't understand why people in here keep posting showing information that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic and then just disprove it.

---

Like I said its subjective.. since lots of advocates of "smoothness" were mostly talking about using their everyday desktop applications being more "smoother" though they cannot "explain" it... Yes, something like... click this and it comes out almost instantly or it loads faster. Been down this path many times before. As for games I doubt anyone can feel a few FPS drop difference when playing unless its really very low FPS... for that you have to look at the MINIMUM FPS to tell, which is where benchmarking comes in... As for the freezes, mostly due to paging.. it happens sometimes. :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

also that HT system was only faster because of the hdd and ram. :rolleyes:

---

Both systems have the same RAM, motherboard and HDD. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

The only epic fail I see is people that are not willing to test to see if this is something concrete that can be measured.

Why? What are you scared of?

---

I am not scared my friend. :)

I build, benches, uses lotsa rigs. From both "camps".

I know what "smoothness" means, and yes, it can be observed and apreciated.

*My personal view/experience* is that "smoothness" has little to do with CPU, apart from the above mentioned experience with HT-cabable CPU's (regarding swithcing/starting task).
I really wish AMD could use this technology for next gen PHII/III/IV, as much of the "superiority" by ci7 in multitasking benches/use is due to HT.
Do *NOT* compare AMD HyperTransport with Intels HyperThreading. It is two completely different animals. The first for single path/app thruput/performance, the latter for *multitasking* performance (and as a "side-effect" it gives an impression of "smoothness"). :)

I also apreciate RoofSnipers (and others) interest in measuring "smoothness".
But it is *you* guys that must "prove" it. If possible. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

Regarding harddrive problems. Don't think this is the problem. Have tried three hardrives, all with 7200 rpm and one of those was a fast external with eSATA. of course you will not notice this very short freezing if just the processor spins, as long as the data is in the cpu for intel then it is fast. It is probably a communication thing.

---

I have no such problems compiling even with a Dothan 1.6GHz. The only times that I've seen the mouse skip under HD access is when XP decided to switch the HD from UDMA 5 to PIO mode. The other possibility is your compilation threads are set to absurdly high priority thereby starving the OS of CPU time to service interrupts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glow9

Smoothness is just a justification for going with AMD, more of a placebo than anything.

---

Yep, I used smoothness to justify going with AMD... and going with intel and going with intel and going with intel and going with AMD and going with intel and going with AMD and going with AMD. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iandh

Ok. Following is a description of my hardware addiction:

The AMD chips I currently have in my possession are: X2 3600+, 4000+, 5000+ BE, Phenom 8450, and Phenom 9950.

The intel chips I currently have in my possession are: (had) E2180, E5200, E7200, E8400, Q6600.

For AMD mobos I have a Biostar Tforce550, and Biostar 790GX. For intel, Gigabyte P35 DS3L, and MSI X48 (dead).

I have three different sets of DDR2 800 memory. One G.Skill 2x2Gb, one Corsair XMS 2x1Gb, and one Kingston value 2x1Gb.

For GPU's I have (had) an evga GTX 260 core 216, (had) Visiontek 4850, (had) Visiontek 4870 512, and my current card, Powercolor 4870.

I have played with nearly every conceivable configuration of this hardware, and the "cleanest" or "smoothest" (evidently BS from what I hear) running setup out of them all has been my 790GX/9950/4870 combo. That means least stuttering, best framerate stability, least crashes (stock or OC), least trouble with driver errors, least trouble with hardware changes.

Why is this?

Could be:

1. Mobo peculiarities

2. Ram peculiarities

3. Defective CPU's (umm not likely)

4. An all AMD platform runs better (dunno, maybe)

5. Luck of the draw?



I prefer my Phenom/790GX over my Q6600/P35 in gaming, whether stock or OC'ed. It just seems to run games smoother. Although the average framerate is lower, I seem to get better framerate stability.

Some may say I am imagining it or spouting BS, but I most certainly do not feel that I am.

I am not necessarily saying that AMD or intel is "better" for gaming, all I am saying is "Here is the hardware I have, and here is what I consider to run the best out of the hardware I currently possess"



The funny thing is that I am not the only person I have seen have the same experience, so either we are all imagining it, or there is something going on that can't easily be shown with benchmarks and graphs. ;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghostbuster

This whole thread itself is considered as Epic Fail... as well as the advocates of "smoothness" :D

---

Your post is epic fail.

It's oooookay to insult people because I don't agree with them. :up:

Go away if you are going to troll. Stay if you are going to make polite and logical discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TL1000S

I am not scared my friend. :)

I build, benches, uses lotsa rigs. From both "camps".

I know what "smoothness" means, and yes, it can be observed and apreciated.

*My personal view/experience* is that "smoothness" has little to do with CPU, apart from the above mentioned experience with HT-cabable CPU's (regarding swithcing/starting task).
I really wish AMD could use this technology for next gen PHII/III/IV, as much of the "superiority" by ci7 in multitasking benches/use is due to HT.
Do *NOT* compare AMD HyperTransport with Intels HyperThreading. It is two completely different animals. The first for single path/app thruput/performance, the latter for *multitasking* performance (and as a "side-effect" it gives an impression of "smoothness"). :)

I also apreciate RoofSnipers (and others) interest in measuring "smoothness".
But it is *you* guys that must "prove" it. If possible. :)

---

I am here to discuss this with other people experiencing the same thing (or those that accept it as a possibility and are interested in quantifying it), not "prove" it to a bunch of cynical, troll-happy, blinder wearing intel fanboys (not necessarily directed at anyone in particular).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

is there someone that has both intel and amd and thinks intel is smoother?

regarding all performance tests out there this should be much more common. I can't remember that I have seen anyone that has had that experiance

---

Me neither. I in fact, do have both AMD and intel. :up:

might as well close the thread since all im trying to do is find a repeatable testing method but everything you say in the amd forums these days just feeds the trolls. :shakes:

Even if a bench could be made that shows a difference the non-believers would pooh-pooh it off. They'd talk about how AMD-biased the bench was and they would not believe. In short, I express the same sentiment many have already pointed out - it's a moot point that will never be taken seriously.

Now, the i7 issue is one place where there could be a few halting steps forward. If Intel guys start saying this as well about Intel CPU's then, eventually, this effect may become "common knowledge". But by then, going back and saying "I told you so" won't matter much either - it'll be ancient history, a non-issue ... :-/

someone could do the same test the youtube link shows you just need a KVM (right ?)to control both at the same time. ram speed same gbs same clocks the same.

that would be nice to see. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

I have no such problems compiling even with a Dothan 1.6GHz.

---

Are you using a lot of templates (C++)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuietIce

Even if a bench could be made that shows a difference the non-believers would pooh-pooh it off. They'd talk about how AMD-biased the bench was and they would not believe. In short, I express the same sentiment many have already pointed out - it's a moot point that will never be taken seriously.

Now, the i7 issue is one place where there could be a few halting steps forward. If Intel guys start saying this as well about Intel CPU's then, eventually, this effect may become "common knowledge". But by then, going back and saying "I told you so" won't matter much either - it'll be ancient history, a non-issue ... :-/

---

I completely agree.

That said, I think that I am going to take my spare parts and pick up an MM duality. I'll build a Phenom/Q6600 rig with ATI and Nvidia GPU's and call it "fanboy's nightmare". That way every time someone accuses me of bias I can tell them to stfu... :D

I may also call it "Smooth and Rough", I'm not sure yet though. :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuietIce

Now, the i7 issue is one place where there could be a few halting steps forward. If Intel guys start saying this as well about Intel CPU's then, eventually, this effect may become "common knowledge". But by then, going back and saying "I told you so" won't matter much either - it'll be ancient history, a non-issue ... :-/

---

Except the expereince with a i7 with Hyperthreading would be completely different as compared to Core 2 or Phenom. With Hyperthreading, the i7 can execute 8 threads at once which would mean that things would be "smoother" since threads would not need to wait for time (or at least need to wait as often) to be allocated. However, each thread would suffer in terms of performance because it would be sharing CPU resources with another thread but total throughput of all 8 threads will be greater than only running 4 threads at once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

Are you using a lot of templates (C++)?

---

Some templates, plenty of libraries but no problems for even a Dothan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demonkevy666

someone could do the same test the youtube link shows you just need a KVM (right ?)to control both at the same time. ram speed same gbs same clocks the same.

that would be nice to see. :)

---

yes that would be nice to see but im not sure if it will prove anything. might be nice to see some games like far cry 2 and look at the fps at each second. cause big fps changes will cause things to not look smooth even if the benchmark comes out saying it has a higher fps. opening up a ton of applications might not show the responsiveness but if the application starts to open faster that says something even if it doesn't finish opening first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

Some templates, plenty of libraries but no problems for even a Dothan.

---

Some? what does that mean? Some in stl

I use boost, stl, atl, wtl and have done a lot my own templates. If you add more templates you will se that memory consumption rises and you need to increase some setting for memory that I now don't remember what it is called. Compile times will also be much slower. Libs is no problem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

Except i7 with Hyperthreading would operate differently as compared to Core 2 or Phenom. With Hyperthreading, the i7 can execute 8 threads at once which would mean that things would be "smoother" since threads would not need to wait for time (or at least need to wait as often) to be allocated. However, each thread would suffer in terms of performance because it would be sharing CPU resources with another thread but total throughput of all 8 threads will be greater than only running 4 threads at once.

---

It's difficult to argue objectivity with subjective-minded fanboys, isn't it? Both you and Ghostbuster have hit the nail right on the head with your explanations, but at this point, you might as well be talking to your living room wall!

@ Gosh, read Accord99's post and stop running processor intensive applications while trying to do anything else on an obviously choked laptop. At best stop comparing a dualcore to a quadcore; please do me a favor and stop that. It's retarded - 4 threads will always trump two threads when executing more than two threads simultaneously; especially if clocks are about the same. Why I'm I even having to say this?:rolleyes:

@ The Rest: This thread is very late. Responsiveness aka smoothness ;) will always scale with the number of threads a cpu is able to execute simultaneously, eg.

On Intel:

PIII - 1 single thread
P4 HT - 2 threads
C2D - 2 threads
C2Q - 4 threads
Ci7 HT - 8 threads

It is simple, in the extreme multi-tasking environment, Ci7 blows everything out of the water. That is your responsiveness, or smoothness.

It's funny, fanboys comparing dualcores with quads and so on. This thread is useless, and needs to be closed. :shakes:

Edit: @ roofsniper, do yourself a favor and stop posting in this thread; you have no idea what you're talking about and your spamming the thread like there's no tomorrow; I gave up counting your useless posts; to top that, you're showing a lot of attitude too, what a combination? At least allow people who actually buy and use cpus on both platforms to post their experiences. I'm tired of reading your 'nothings' already. :shakes: Out.

I will have another go.
An F1 racing car is faster than a RollRoyce but the RollRoyce will be a smoother ride.
The F1 will have a hard ride, lots of abrupt acceleration & breaking giving you a very inconstant ride but a fast one.
The RollRoyce as a softer setup, smoother acceleration & breaking giving you a more constant ride.

Not everyone will prefer the F1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

is there someone that has both intel and amd and thinks intel is smoother?

regarding all performance tests out there this should be much more common. I can't remember that I have seen anyone that has had that experiance

---

I have, and I think they are both on the same smoothness level.
I have owned

Intel
e4300
e2140(2)
e2160 ES
e2180
e6300(2)
e6400
e6600(2)
Xeon 3060
e6850
e8400
Q6600

AMD
Sempron 2800+(2)
Athlon 3000+(3)
Opteron 1210
Opteron 1212
Opteron 1214
X2 3600+(2)
X4 9850 BE

I know what you guys speak of when you say if does not feel smooth. Like when you pay games it says 60fps but it still lags every half second. I guess you could call it micro-studdering. I had this problem with BOTH amd and intel systems. In the past year or two I have went thought all of those systems above trying to get one not to do it when it is overclocked. I finally figured it out with system that I just built(one in the sig). This intel "roughness" happened because my gtl multi and vtt were not properly tweaked. I have no idea how to fix it on an amd system, but if I had to guess I would say up the htt voltage.
Just My 2cents:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hstuehmeyer2000

I have, and I think they are both on the same smoothness level.
I have owned

Intel
e4300
e2140(2)
e2160 ES
e2180
e6300(2)
e6400
e6600(2)
Xeon 3060
e6850
e8400
Q6600

AMD
Sempron 2800+(2)
Athlon 3000+(3)
Opteron 1210
Opteron 1212
Opteron 1214
X2 3600+(2)
X4 9850 BE

I know what you guys speak of when you say if does not feel smooth. Like when you pay games it says 60fps but it still lags every half second. I guess you could call it micro-studdering. I had this problem with BOTH amd and intel systems. In the past year or two I have went thought all of those systems above trying to get one not to do it when it is overclocked. I finally figured it out with system that I just built(one in the sig). This intel "roughness" happened because my gtl multi and vtt were not properly tweaked. I have no idea how to fix it on an amd system, but if I had to guess I would say up the htt voltage.
Just My 2cents:up:

---

HTX2 clocks and VC1 enabled ? Nb traffic??
I was reading up this it sounds like it could slow you down or speed it up depending on the settings.
Igpot as far as setting 1,000mhz Hyper tranport and getting VC1 and nb triffc enable after that I got a no boot lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final8ty

I will have another go.
An F1 racing car is faster than a RollRoyce but the RollRoyce will be a smoother ride.
The F1 will have a hard ride, lots of abrupt acceleration & breaking giving you a very inconstant ride but a fast one.
The RollRoyce as a softer setup, smoother acceleration & breaking giving you a more constant ride.

Not everyone will prefer the F1.

---

Come on, you can do better than that. A processor is not a car! A processor deals with calculations; it either gets it right or throws up errors. The processor which is producing the most fps is always doing the faster (need I say accurate) calculations. If it gets it wrong, it throws up an error. It takes all the necessary components of a system to render faster framerates; if you guys don't know this, then all the more reason this thread needs to be closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freeloader

Unfortunately this subject is subjective and there's no way to quantify something that's subjective. It's equivalent to trying to scientifically prove that God doesn't exist.

---

exactly, i already wrote that and was called stupid. :p:

But that god thing is a bit far fetched, lets stick to more profane thing like taste, how to measure if something tastes good or bad? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Final8ty

I will have another go.
An F1 racing car is faster than a RollRoyce but the RollRoyce will be a smoother ride.
The F1 will have a hard ride, lots of abrupt acceleration & breaking giving you a very inconstant ride but a fast one.
The RollRoyce as a softer setup, smoother acceleration & breaking giving you a more constant ride.

Not everyone will prefer the F1.

---

Drive the F1 car slower and you'll get a more constant ride. Does that mean the slower a CPU, the smoother it is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

@ Gosh, read Accord99's post and stop running processor intensive applications while trying to do anything else on an obviously choked laptop. At best stop comparing a dualcore to a quadcore; please do me a favor and stop that. It's retarded - 4 threads will always trump two threads when executing more than two threads simultaneously; especially if clocks are about the same. Why I'm I even having to say this?:rolleyes:

---

You don't but the price for the C2D is higher compared to the phenom. And I don't think it is the CPU that is the problem, it is the comunication with other hardware and there the C2D and C2Q is the same, in fact the C2Q could be worse regarding comunication because the FSB needs to handle comunication between the two glued C2D.

I did a simple performance test application some time ago. Doing some tests there and I noticed that the problems was when you flood data in the fsb, if you do that then the computer will get these stops. If you only spins the processor then the threadswitching works ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

I did a simple performance test application some time ago. Doing some tests there and I noticed that the problems was when you flood data in the fsb, if you do that then the computer will get these stops. If you only spins the processor then the threadswitching works ok.

---

No it sounds like more of a issue with your hard drive is in PIO mode or that your computation threads are set to real-time priority and stealing all the CPU time so the OS can't service interrupts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

No it sounds like more of a issue with your hard drive is in PIO mode or that your computation threads are set to real-time priority and stealing all the CPU time so the OS can't service interrupts.

---

I have had two other C2D's one for 1.4 Ghz, one "amilo" don't remember the Hz but think it was something near 2 GHz. Also tried on a friends computer. I can't say for sure about these becase I don't rember and then I used Opteron 165 as working computer. What I know was that my friends C2D (think it was a E6600) was terrably slow running vmware so we skiped it (same as on my laptop with a P8400).
Also I am not talking about one second freeze, it's more like 0.05 second. The CPU is mostly above 95% workload when I compile two projects at the same time.

The performance test application I did didn't touch the harddrive

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

@ The Rest: This thread is very late. Responsiveness aka smoothness ;) will always scale with the number of threads a cpu is able to execute simultaneously, eg.

On Intel:

PIII - 1 single thread
P4 HT - 2 threads
C2D - 2 threads
C2Q - 4 threads
Ci7 HT - 8 threads

It is simple, in the extreme multi-tasking environment, Ci7 blows everything out of the water. That is your responsiveness, or smoothness.

It's funny, fanboys comparing dualcores with quads and so on. This thread is useless, and needs to be closed. :shakes:

---

Sure if a cpu has more threads aviable a system will get more "smoother" but that effect is somewhat limited. Above a real dualcore you dont notice if the system has 2/4/8 or even 16 threads. At least thats my personal experience.

At home i have 3 systems working dual core, quadcore FSB and a Quadcore with IMC. And i dont notice any difference when i work or game on them. Its another thing when i do some heavy CFD calculations, for that i prefere the Ci7, cause of its more threads. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

It's difficult to argue objectivity with subjective-minded fanboys, isn't it? Both you and Ghostbuster have hit the nail right on the head with your explanations, but at this point, you might as well be talking to your living room wall!

---

Actually you mean like it's impossible to get it through the heads of certain people that we wish to find ways to measure what some people believe to be subjective and make it an objective attribute.

SUMMATION: IF YOU CAN MEASURE IT THEN IT IS NOT SUBJECTIVE.

Did you comprehend that last sentence or should I attempt to put it into simpler words for you and your henchmen?

You trolls should just go away. (But I know you're having too much fun being obstinate; in your eyes it is sauce for the goose.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Come on, you can do better than that. A processor is not a car! A processor deals with calculations; it either gets it right or throws up errors. The processor which is producing the most fps is always doing the faster (need I say accurate) calculations. If it gets it wrong, it throws up an error. It takes all the necessary components of a system to render faster framerates; if you guys don't know this, then all the more reason this thread needs to be closed.

---

I was defining that faster is not always better & nothing else as i have never had an Intel so would not know.

And your a perfect example as to why it should not be closed & is no better than communist dictator not wanting others to find out if there is any merit to the theory as it does not require your participation so why should you care .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

It's difficult to argue objectivity with subjective-minded fanboys, isn't it? Both you and Ghostbuster have hit the nail right on the head with your explanations, but at this point, you might as well be talking to your living room wall!

@ Gosh, read Accord99's post and stop running processor intensive applications while trying to do anything else on an obviously choked laptop. At best stop comparing a dualcore to a quadcore; please do me a favor and stop that. It's retarded - 4 threads will always trump two threads when executing more than two threads simultaneously; especially if clocks are about the same. Why I'm I even having to say this?:rolleyes:

@ The Rest: This thread is very late. Responsiveness aka smoothness ;) will always scale with the number of threads a cpu is able to execute simultaneously, eg.

On Intel:

PIII - 1 single thread
P4 HT - 2 threads
C2D - 2 threads
C2Q - 4 threads
Ci7 HT - 8 threads

It is simple, in the extreme multi-tasking environment, Ci7 blows everything out of the water. That is your responsiveness, or smoothness.

It's funny, fanboys comparing dualcores with quads and so on. This thread is useless, and needs to be closed. :shakes:

Edit: @ roofsniper, do yourself a favor and stop posting in this thread; you have no idea what you're talking about and your spamming the thread like there's no tomorrow; I gave up counting your useless posts; to top that, you're showing a lot of attitude too, what a combination? At least allow people who actually buy and use cpus on both platforms to post their experiences. I'm tired of reading your 'nothings' already. :shakes: Out.

---

zucker you by far have no right to call anyone a fanboy. somehow i am always a fanboy when im taking a realistic approach. its fanboys like you that refuse to believe amd is good at anything. i have shown legit information and all you ever do is come in and say amd sucks and flame everyone you find in the thread that is running amd. if you have absolutely no understanding of amd or anything at all why do you even make a post? you have no right to even say i don't know what i am talking about when you most likely have no clue what amd even stands for. its just ridiculous that you can't even post in the amd section anymore without any fanboys like you coming in here and making it so no one can say anything. if you are tired of reading my posts just ignore me but its just unbelievable that you are such a huge fanboy you can't even think that amd could be good at anything. the problem is i can't ignore any of you guys because theres just so many posting in here for no reason at all and then threads like this get ruined instead of anything actually getting done. no one goes ans screws the intel section up so why do you feel the need to come in here and screw the amd section up? its just pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

At home i have 3 systems working dual core, quadcore FSB and a Quadcore with IMC. And i dont notice any difference when i work or game on them.

---

In a swedish forum there was a discussion about who had noticed any differences going from dual to quad. Almost all (if not all) that had switched to phenom did noticed a improvement, especially when they used a lot of applications (this is of course very logic). But those who had switched to quad on the intel side there was mostly no differences in how the computer felt.

The improvement going from Opteron 165 to Phenom was huge for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

no one goes ans screws the intel section up so why do you feel the need to come in here and screw the amd section up? its just pathetic.

---

Actually that's easy to answer. If we could actually NOT have to deal with them in this thread... we might actually succeed at our goal.

These posters would not like to see that happen. So they come to sabotage the thread and make sure nobody can actually discuss anything in an mature manner. (And yes, their juvenile antics are very pathetic.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

Actually you mean like it's impossible to get it through the heads of certain people that we wish to find ways to measure what some people believe to be subjective and make it an objective attribute.

SUMMATION: IF YOU CAN MEASURE IT THEN IT IS NOT SUBJECTIVE.

Did you comprehend that last sentence or should I attempt to put it into simpler words for you and your henchmen?

You trolls should just go away. (But I know you're having too much fun being obstinate; in your eyes it is sauce for the goose.)

---

Where is the fire? Way to rehash the same point I made. Sorry, let me reduce it to your understanding: try running 8 threads on a single core processor; now try the same on Ci7 or even Deneb. Let's see what the results.

@Hornet, until a cpu is bottle-necked, you'd have to look at other factors for lag; hard drives have been suggested. Going with this line of thinking, and taking into consideration latest trends in computing - multi-tasking- one is bound to run into a cpu lag sooner with a dualcore cpu than a quadcore cpu. Of course, that a person runs into it all would depend on what they do, eg. power users ate bound to experience this more often than not. I can't remember how many times I've switched between duals and quads, but I'm currently running a quad because it is just that much smoother. :eek: Oh nooooooo, I said it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

Actually you mean like it's impossible to get it through the heads of certain people that we wish to find ways to measure what some people believe to be subjective and make it an objective attribute.

SUMMATION: IF YOU CAN MEASURE IT THEN IT IS NOT SUBJECTIVE.

Did you comprehend that last sentence or should I attempt to put it into simpler words for you and your henchmen?

You trolls should just go away. (But I know you're having too much fun being obstinate; in your eyes it is sauce for the goose.)

---

I think you should chill and actually read some post, instead of saying they are trolls....

how do you want to measure smoothness, its not directly linked to a parameter you can measure...

Lets go back to the taste example... how you know how something tastes?

You could put a sample of a certain food (lets say a sweet candy) into a gas chromatograph and tell its exact elements down to the last molecule.

Now feed this exact ingridients to 100 people and there will be people that say its to sweet or not sweet enough, other will tell you other stuff.

So does that mean the candy is to sweet or to does it need more sugar?

Taste is subjective, and the same goes for "smoothness".

You can find 100s of parameters, e.g. whats the max difference between max and min fps in a game, how fast do the menus open when you click on start buttun, you could measure it to the millisecond exact, and people would still tell you the see no difference or theres a huge difference...