AM2+ mobo could be used too in this case for ThubanQuote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Printable View
AM2+ mobo could be used too in this case for ThubanQuote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
please, dont be ridiculousQuote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
an i5 750 @ 2.66ghz beats PII 965 @ 3.4GHZ in pretty much all scenarios..
do I really need to post benchmarks of bloomfield @ 3ghz against deneb @3.5-3.7ghz? :shakes:
please do, we want to see it so we can believe it!Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ridney
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...3451/21964.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...3451/21969.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...3451/21971.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...3451/21972.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...3451/21974.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...3451/21991.png
all stock, but clearly shows that a 20% higher clocked PII (4 cores) cant beat lynnfield/bloomfield...
so is this chart showing that we get an OC even if only 4 cores are used? that can help by a good 100-200mhz. if its true id love to see how effectively this works by comparing benchies and games between the same clocked 6 and 4 core turbo AMDsQuote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
:rolleyes: i7, i5, i3 don't run at stock clocks at all....
Hell, with Turbo enabled, my i7 920 never runs at 2.66 (if its idle or with light tasks, runs at ~2.1-2.2, if it uses one-eight threads, runs at 2.8 ever).
oh i see, i thought you had tested them yourself with 3ghz bloomfield vs 3.5~3.7 deneb :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
yes, just clarifying things...Quote:
Originally Posted by ridney
every architecture has its strenghs and weaknesses, you can always handpick tests where PII has the edge.. but overall, it's fair to say i7 beats the competition with much lower clocks ;)
Having done that, too, no, I don't. It was those who originally came up with this form. I suppose you've picked it up somewhere and used this way afterwards, not knowing or caring about the exact meaning (being more into Intel than AMD). Anyway, it's wrong this way and better to avoid as it has a shadow of ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
I did not say you won't get the same experience. I did say that I do get better experience, because I do notice the difference. If you don't and/or PhII is enough for you then stop right now because any (Intel or AMD) faster processor would be useless for you. However I bet you will buy a new one much sooner than you think, then what, you bought it to get a better experience? You had a good enough one, right? ;) There is no such thing as agree to disagree, there are two processors, one is faster, you choose the slower one because it's enough for you. Don't try to make the faster one look bad or something because you can't/don't need to use it to its full potential, even more when you are in XS, we do use our CPUs.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
Yes, I don't need to test PhII, its perfomance is well known already thanks to the trillions of comparisons out there, it sits right there with the C2Qs at the same clocks and I've owned a C2Q. i5/i7 are out of sight. This is a fact, not a guess.
About the games, I'm not talking about guesses like you. The best review I can read is play the games myself. If C2Q-->i5 gives me 20 minFPS more I don't need to read anything more except to confirm my findings, something I've already done, and that's why I write what I write. If you don't believe me about the TF2 increase, go read any review that test Source Engine games like L2D or play it, you'll see it for yourself. If you don't believe me about the Assassin's Creed increase, go walk into a crowd in your machine, etc. I can feel any of these right after firing up the game. If you can't well, you can't, but I do. Yeah I remember the whole load of "slower but smoother" BS. Thank god AMD has improved with PhII vs the original Phenom, and magically we don't hear it anymore. I bet a lot of hardcore AMD guys do love to play between 50-80 instead of 70-150, exageration but you get the idea.
I tell you the same as Rav, you have certain requirements, I have different ones. If you are happy then what the hell f*ck Intel. However I want to say something: you don't see increases in framerate in a CPU bound game when you increase CPU frequency? Something is going wrong there, check it out because you're probably wasting a lot of FPS somewhere. Maybe at 1080p the 5850 is the bottleneck. I have to say that my 5850 is overclocked, but nothing spectacular: 850/1200, I play at 1680x1050 8xAA/16xAF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom128
If that were true then AMD would have 80% or close to 80% market share. You know this is not the case unfortunately, so why do you say such absurd statement? People don't know what they need, plain and simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by haylui
I wonder how Intel did it, with Vista's thread bounce killing Phenom's performance when CnQ is enabled.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
EDIT: I've read it (I forgot about it), Intel shuts their cores down :up:
Phenom II's CnQ fixed it by throttling and clocking all cores to the same speed. Perhaps x6's turbo works the same way, just that they improved the power consumption when cores are clocked up, and decides turbo level depending on the overall core usage. Just my two cents.
Does Window 7 do thread bounce?
Phenom = CnQ 2.0
Phenom II = CnQ 3.0
Phenom II x6 = CnQ 3.1 I guess :confused:
C&N with TURBO mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
If its locked then 890FX have to be able to go >400+ bus speedQuote:
Originally Posted by mindfury
we only need 250 bus speed to get it to 4ghz at 3.2 stockQuote:
Originally Posted by Dumo
I dont notice the difference between 100 or 120frames per second.So in these rare cpu bound situations (all games i play are gpu bound) its not gonna make a difference for me between say 3.5 PH2 or even 4ghz i5/7.Quote:
I did not say you won't get the same experience. I did say that I do get better experience, because I do notice the difference. If you don't and/or PhII is enough for you then stop right now because any (Intel or AMD) faster processor would be useless for you. However I bet you will buy a new one much sooner than you think, then what, you bought it to get a better experience? You had a good enough one, right?
Faster processors and specially more cores ARE useful to me because i like to do many things at once,like encode and game at the same time.Thats the reason im upgrading to thuban :).Migrating to i5 750 would be more expensive and wouldnt get me more performance on my workload.So, it would be stupid of me ;-).
Well, there is this kind of thing when people are being civilized and understand that their OPINION, could be different than others :).But ok,lets dwell.Quote:
There is no such thing as agree to disagree, there are two processors, one is faster, you choose the slower one because it's enough for you. Don't try to make the faster one look bad or something because you can't/don't need to use it to its full potential, even more when you are in XS, we do use our CPUs.
I dont MAKE faster processors look bad.What i was saying in the beginning in the reply to your statement, was that i wont be sacrificing any game experience using multicore cpu slower PER core than lets say i5 750 because pretty much every new game is GPU bound, and the older ones that arent, reach astronomical amounts of FPS on both processors.
And i stand by that.Remember, its YOU that said to ME that i WILL GET INFERIOR gaming experience on thuban than i5 or i7.So its was you who was painting one processor in bad light.I am saying that in gaming both processors are gpu bound.And you havent prove me wrong.You just said there is a difference, but every review with high quality gfx out there shows that GPUs run out of juice WAAAY faster than cpu.
Funny, i remember when i7 launched, it was sweeping through benchmarks like a plasma torch, however when it came to gaming it wasnt that much faster, if i remember correctly 12MB L2 cpus from intel were even sometimes faster.Quote:
Yes, I don't need to test PhII, its perfomance is well known already thanks to the trillions of comparisons out there, it sits right there with the C2Qs at the same clocks and I've owned a C2Q. i5/i7 are out of sight. This is a fact, not a guess.
And yes ,PH2 is slower in almost every gaming benchmark than i7.But to show that benchmarks have to be run in low quality.And nobody games that way.
Well, i played too, i often use different platforms, and well, i havent seen what you see.Not between PH2 and nehalem.So we have different opinions here.And i wont agree with you just because u say so.Quote:
About the games, I'm not talking about guesses like you. The best review I can read is play the games myself. If C2Q-->i5 gives me 20 minFPS more I don't need to read anything more except to confirm my findings, something I've already done, and that's why I write what I write. If you don't believe me about the TF2 increase, go read any review that test Source Engine games like L2D or play it, you'll see it for yourself. If you don't believe me about the Assassin's Creed increase, go walk into a crowd in your machine, etc. I can feel any of these right after firing up the game. If you can't well, you can't, but I do. Yeah I remember the whole load of "slower but smoother" BS. Thank god AMD has improved with PhII vs the original Phenom, and magically we don't hear it anymore. I bet a lot of hardcore AMD guys do love to play between 50-80 instead of 70-150, exageration but you get the idea.
I played source based games, and they were absurdly fast.
I played AS, it was boring but no dramatical slowdowns, nope.
You say that "smoother" feel was BS, but well, you did notice that between core and nehalem, so maybe it has to do with something as obvious as build in MC ?Ofcourse you just call it BS, because you admit that you havent even tested PH2...
And the last part.Of course, exaggeration ;-)
Because you really i see have a feeling towards min fps.Heres a snippet.
[QUOTE]http://www.pcgameshardware.com/scree...iginal/2009/11http://www.pcgameshardware.com/scree...Us-1680-1x.png
In this cpu bound game you have this drastic difference of 10%...
And REALLY anything above 80FPS is just insanely hard to SEE.In pretty much any normal game, resolution and IQ ,most of the people are going to hardly go above 60FPS (which is ofcourse plenty for our eyes, remember that movies at the cinema have 24)
Of course we see, its just that pretty much all recent games are GPU bound at humane IQ settings.Quote:
ou don't see increases in framerate in a CPU bound game when you increase CPU frequency?
So as i said before, i disagreeabout your comment that using multicore phenom II cpu wont get me pretty much the same gaming experience as i7.When clocked high enough (much higher than i7) all my gaming situations are ,and morover gonna be when i upgrade to 5850 ,GPU LIMITED.
100% of consumers need the competition AMD brings, maybe that statement isn't so absurd? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
This will certainly be a fun processor --- more fun than that will be the fanboy threads that erupt when this thing launches, the flame wars may become legendary.
flame wars has started already! even without proper information :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Frankly, this thread has been very good ... good info, some speculation, and a lot of excitement ... this is what it is all about.Quote:
Originally Posted by ridney
if 890fx is only a bit better than 790 so I'm not sure about it :shakes: faster boards on 890gx/890x and probably they will do frequency >400 htt as it was with 7xx series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumo
it's xs, people don't care about such low frequency as 4ghz is :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ridney
It isn't, according to this (auto-translated from Swedish).Quote:
Originally Posted by mindfury
Didn't you hear about the investigations against Intel for the illegal tricks to prevent AMD gaining marketshare?Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
And so those people usually get Intel from many vendors, for some reason...Quote:
People don't know what they need, plain and simple.
btw, know what abou talking...i5 750 is simillary in real performance with x4 955. X4 965 is a bit better, i read all reviews from world, im reading to every CPU as minimal 20 reviews, ussually about 30-40 to one product. So, not flame here guys, here is it about Thuban, not i5 750 (o.c., its good CPU, maybe the best from Intel for customers)
I meant....at least 400X15:)Quote:
Originally Posted by ridney
C'n'Q in Phenoms is slow compared to how Intel Turbo can switch speeds.The biggest problem with dynamic core clocking - delay between states.
AMD's new Thuban and Lisbon core supposedly address that problem by moving all power controlling logic into CPU (same as Intel did). This should ensure faster p-state switching and less delay. In return we should get less hit from retarded Windows task scheduler when doing light workloads.
I can't wait to test this new CPU myself!