Printable View
It is probably the way they calculated the 'mean', a geometric mean is not weighted to be necessarily linear with a linear dependent variable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
AMD is a huge fan of 'hiding' data behind geometric means. Most all of their benchmark presentations use this metholdology recently.
One reason I am not happy with AMD and have been so massively critical.
The funny thing, is that the projected 9900 (2.6GHz) performs only 31% better than 9500 (2.2 GHz] when 9700 (2.4 GHz) performs 24% better...
So I vote for the shintai explanation, calculation done on a phenom :)
:) Doesn't make much sense does it.... Unless they are planning on some major bug fix.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemrod
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
:) Not to mention that it is contrary to all the 3rd part benches/data (see lead post of this thread :) )....
LOL, so AMD expects a 31.4% performance increase from a 13% clockspeed increase?!
The idiots probably benched Yorkfields at those frequencies and used those scores as their own... :p
If you own or have seen someone try a Phenom X4 on a older AM2 platform, you would know they have serious problems everywhere in typical functioning and need a new BIOS which there isn't ATM. GPU performance is horrible along with them compared to an X2 chip in the same board. This is of 23rd Nov rather than 10-16th Nov of the review experimentations. You can't even set RAM timings like SPD without BSODs on the best of ASUS' AM2 board, so those "reviews" which use an AM2 board could've easily had bugged lower numbers in absolute contexts. The new 790 boards should show no problems though apart from Gigabyte's Overdrive support. I have both a new AM2+ and an old AM2 board to check this out very soon.
So, what do the people here think of a common air/water oc for Phenom 9500/9600? Lets hear some educated guesses.
Nice 9500 for 200€, i'll order one now.Quote:
Originally Posted by justapost
Maybe a newer version of tmpegenc or divx will have sse4a support. I don't expect much. I'm just curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Looks like beside they used 7% for a 100MHz clock increase they expect a 10% higher performance with the new stepping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagart
My board got delayed, but i will order a cpu now. I already downloaded win2008rc0 (32 and 64 bit) for comparison and installed it on a c2d notebook (hp 6820s). My primary goal is to compare the new virtual machine support and compare it to xen but as a sidefeffect i'll get a comparison of os-dependent speed improvements.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
Hope i'll find the time to bench all the different configurations i have in mind.
I plan to run the whole thing on am2 and am2+ again, to get an impression how the new virtualisation functions on phenoms work.
And why would AMD need that?:) Performance is fine, if not good for the price.Quote:
Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss
Link
The image you linked that was from here:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...e=expert&pid=8
Nice job cherrypicking a graph without noting that. Pure BS really.Quote:
The overall 3DMark06 scores show the Phenom is more positive light than they should because of the different graphics cards at work on the two testing setups -- remember the Phenoms were running dual Radeon HD 3850 cards while the Intel Core 2 and AMD Athlon CPUs were running a single 8800 GTX card. The CPU tests aren't affected though and once again the Phenoms split the pack of existing dual- and quad-core CPUs.
That review's conclusion:
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid...=expert&pid=12
Quote:
I have no doubts that many readers of this review fill find it disappointing that AMD's Phenom processors were not competitive with Intel's high-end quad-core processors. It's hard to hide my own disappointment as I personally really wanted AMD to do well - competition makes the world go 'round and prices go down; always good things in my book. The Phenom launch isn't a total loss though thanks to the aggressive pricing that AMD is pinning on these initial CPUs; that will appeal to many enthusiasts.
I can't help but draw the analogy of the Phenom launch to that of the Radeon HD 2900 XT: it was a technologically advanced GPU that had scaling issues that kept it from competing at the high end of its market thus forcing AMD to drop prices to stay in the game. Now that AMD's HD 3800 series of GPUs has seemingly fixed that problem, they are presented another with the Phenom desktop processor. Hopefully AMD will make as quick a turnaround on this project as they did on the GPU side and we'll see the Phenoms truly compete at all price ranges.
:) Yeah, if you like the slower of the choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
How about some 3D gaming benches designed to really understand the potency of the CPU as a game code cruncher:
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/5...500/page15.php
Synthetics, while interesting ... are not the best way to understand real world performance. Especially 3DMark, which is GPU weighted -- considering they had 2 cards working, is it surprising to see a decent score in 3DMark?
The newer version of DivX supports SSE4, they touted that heavily. But SSE4a, I have not seen any public support for these instructions. SSE4a is a different set of instructions, I doubt it will be long before a version comes up with support. I am with you, it would be interesting to see what it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by justapost
The instructions in SSE4 really help one another to remove cache and memory write back bottlenecks so you see a marked difference. AFAI think SSE4a won't make too much if any "performance" difference in the desktop environment. It's missing added instructions which can give the processing delay a boost and those are supposed to come with either one of Shanghai or Deneb. For these, I expect they will only hasten floating point data by removing L1 cache bottlenecks.
You can read a little about the instructions here:
http://forums.amd.com/devblog/blogpo...8051&catid=271
http://forums.amd.com/devblog/blogpo...threadid=88480
Thanks.... I know very little about the details of these instructions.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
Jack
Have to remember that the 9500 & 9600 have 1.8Ghz Northbridges while the 9700 has a 2.0Ghz northbridge and the 9900 might just have a 2.2Ghz northbridge. I'm pretty sure the extra speed on the L3 cache there would help with the scaling.Quote:
Why is the 9700 and 9900 so much better when the frequences are just a bit higher? (It seems more effective)
One site complained about only running at 2GHz for the 9700.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneider
They still wont scale way beyond 100%...Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneider
100% overall scaling in those programs they list. Would require everything to be that faster. GFX, HD, memory, cache speeds, core speed , HT links and so on.
Its simply BS and lies in the shape of marketing.
9500 vs 9600 they say 7%, yet the core speed only goes up 4.5%. And everything else is the same.
This is the best explanation so far, but I still have a hard time believing that just opening up the BW and lowering latency has that much impact.... however, if it does... then the L3 cache is really doing some damage and will be a critical path in future revisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneider
JJ,that explanation makes the most sense ,but it would imply(like you said) that L3 is a major bottleneck for K10,which is unlikely.It can make a big difference if NB is ran at the same as core speeds,but we need more tests to verify this.K10 looks and performs quite well,but looking at AMD section and some problems people have with early boards/BIOSes,it seems as the whole platform is still a diamond in a rough(problems with changing basic stuff in BIOS for instance).
nice review, it shows that that amd tricore can only competent with intels midrange segment... (trades blows with the E6750)
Primus_Sucks,welcome to the XS :) and thanks for the links.
Excellent link Primus_Sucks!
Hmm, so Phenom X3 @ 2.3GHz ~= E6750/E6850 in multithreaded performance.
Hopefully AMD can get clockspeeds much higher with B3 otherwise Phenom X3 will be stuck battling it out with the higher clocked Intel C2Ds.
according to this post, by end user review Phenom is clock per clock good afteral
in supcom 2.64ghz + ~ 3GHz quad intel
that's not bad :)
LINK
also look at the 3dmark06 scores the users in that thread are getting, they are on par if not even higher then C2D? strange uh :)
You know what this reminds me of.... the P4 fanboys claiming P4 superiority when it won one or two multimedia benchmarks and PCMark.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan