http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=41970
if that is real... wow!
cumec
Printable View
http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=41970
if that is real... wow!
cumec
No reply's!?
Shamino in the 3dteam section got 27k with a 5.1ghz core 2, and two OC'd 2900xt's
So a 3.0ghz barcelona with two oc'd 2900xt's does 30k?
Something phishy, or AMD has a winner
it is over here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=156932
The crossfire (all 3dmark06 records are based on dual card setup) drivers are much better
(and maby they are a special version for 3dmark06), that helps but (a big but) one need to
remember, K10 is better, way better, so no surprize that in 3 ghz it kick intel patch work
(dual dual core, no integrated memoro controller) in the head - i expected nothing less.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=156932Quote:
Originally Posted by Unoid
That's the "official" topic on this subject.
And yes, it sounds very, very fishy...
It smell's like a garden of roses to me - hope its true and accurate.
That is the whole point.Quote:
Originally Posted by tsahi
It would smell like garden and roses if AMD had any real world benches to back this up.
30K in 3DMark is pretty much insane, as the world record right now is 27k, set with a C2Q running 5.1GHz and 2 super cooled and OCed HD2900XTs.....
well if there are benchmarks to back it up, it'll be the most aggressive performance jumps as far back as anyone can remember for x86Quote:
Originally Posted by The Coolest
You forget that the K10 supposed to be much better than core 2 "quad"Quote:
Originally Posted by The Coolest
and 3 ghz for k10 is quite a lot.
Overcloking can not match a better hardware design, it can only
raise the clock.
perhaps this is why they are only introducing 1.9Ghz versions as they know that's all they need to release till intel releases their new CPU's....
perhaps this K10 is a real winner and not just of C2D, but oh whats to follow....
exciting times!! :eek:
Well I hope the 1.9GHz version overclocks like a sonofab1tch then
Well it's supposed to be from the b1 revision (if you're to believe sites like the Inq etc), wich supposedly have problems reaching high clocks..Quote:
Originally Posted by gundersausage
Highly unlikely, considering AMD has a pretty bad track record in new CPU OC, especially when architecture changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by gundersausage
I think there are already two threads on this topic over in "Xtreme News"...
It's gettin' pretty ugly in there too.
I was under the impression that B2 was the latest and final release version?
AMD has been so low-key and mum throughout K10's entire development process that it's hard to assume we know anything about versions.Quote:
Originally Posted by xVeinx
30K is for TRIFIRE! Youtube is your friend! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7EZmYth6TM
I believe that rather then 3ghz phenom is equal to a 6ghz Kentsfield.Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNizze
God, imagine the heat a tri-fire crossfire setup dumps out, and what kind of psu you'll need to supply those beasts.
Not only that, but it has also been proven that the benefits of a multi-GPU setup, a la SLI & Crossfire, do not justify the hundreds of dollars you'll spend for a second let alone THIRD GPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dome
who cares.Quote:
Originally Posted by hardrail
we are in the high end user group, we want more and more power.
3 cards would rock if the drivers would work for games.
mostly tho, crossfire isnt needed, but 30 inch screens are becoming common and 3 cards are there useful.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAQuote:
Originally Posted by ownage
Quote:
You forget that the K10 supposed to be much better than core 2 "quad"
and 3 ghz for k10 is quite a lot
AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
you guys are just hilarious.
there is no.. and i repeat NO DATA to prove that ANY K10, i dont care if its 1ghz or 5 ghz can outrun a Core2Duo or Core2Quad
NONE
but you girls keep dreaming,
someday AMD will get off their a$$es and make a cpu that will create a gap like the AMD64 did to the Intel P4.
they already totally fooked up the 2900 series cards i HIGHLY doubt they are going to crank out a cpu that will totally crush the intel line like you boys are dreaming about.
AMD is being hush hush for 1 reason and 1 reason only.
they can not discuss the crappy benchmarks because the cpu can not beat the core2 duo or quad.
for them to divuldge information now would make the entire K10 launch an absolute flop.
just wait... you'll see,,,, once again, ive said it before and not been wrong,, so i'll say it again... mark my words....
in Which respects?Quote:
Originally Posted by ownage
Both AMD and Intel processors are designed with a series of trade offs. (the same is said about all processors and anyone who says differently is lying)
In some environments current AMD processors outperform Intel Processors and vice versa. So you need to be more specific if you hope to qualify that statement.
that used to be true NNQuote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
but not anymore.
there is no trade off even comparing dual core amd to dual core intel
the intel just goes and goes and goes, while the AMD struggles.
the intel does everything better.
pound for pound 2.4ghz intel vs 2.4ghz AMD.... there is no comparison.. only 1 cpu pulls ahead all the way
i am no way shape or form complaining about AMD, i love the amd cpu's i had and still have.
but when it comes to getting the job done,, Intel wins everytime.
bogus figures i reckon.
but it makes me wonder how good k10 will really be.
and if the figures are true, it'd be a larf and a harf - and the pricetag would be also unbelievable, imo.
the more unsubstantiated crap i hear re k10 the more annoying it is :down:
i smell something...the smell is either:
1. bull sh1t, or
2. intel's cooked goose :hehe:
WRONG, it is still true. Yes I agree that Intel's Quads perform better than AMD's dual cores in many respects but not in all respects. For Example, Virtualization. AMD has hardware support for many(all) used virtualization instructions, Intel does not. Thus AMD can do in 6 clock cycles what takes Intel a hundred regular instructions with latencies ranging from 1 clock cycle to hundreds of clock cycles. So that even in a best case scenario, AMD's 6 clock cycles still owns Intel's 100 clock cycles. Thus even with Quadruple the numbers of Cores, double the clock speed it doesn't make up for the 16 fold superior performance that AMD has for the given task.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
I'm not suggesting it is a common situation, nor will it even matter in a desktop but it is an area that AMD's tradeoffs give them superior performance.