What I find fascinating is that an argument in a thread at XS could lead to an almighty benching session by Intel. We should be glad we're members here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzman
Printable View
What I find fascinating is that an argument in a thread at XS could lead to an almighty benching session by Intel. We should be glad we're members here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzman
X2 cards weren't designed to just save space over 4......
I'm not to keen on the technical portion of it but lets put it in laman terms, the shortest distance betweeen 2 points is a straight line.
If the distance between both GPU chips is shorter on X2 versus 2 cards there will be a performance boost, we see this in benchmarks already.
Shorter paths, less resistance = gain.
They implement the same philosophy on reference boards. Grouper, manta and the 790gx amd reference boards all had the PCI X at the very top slot almost touching the NB and the NB was oriented very close to the CPU. It's done intentionally.
I didn't even think of that. well also isn't it cheaper to make since it's one PCB,Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
Resistance is hardly the effect. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
Shorter paths = less delay = possibly higher frequencies :up:
Dunno,Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
I sense a bit of fail in it. Handpicking out of 100K units, just to show that a guy on a forum posting in AMD threads might be right:shrug:
thx was under the impression that that the longer a single path is however there is more resistance. Just as with anything a .001mm copper strand has less resistance than a .002mm copper strand just the same longer strands work on the same principle or maybe i have it backwards?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostbuster
Like i said I'm not to keen on it, but i understand why it works.
Yes its cheaper also.
Quite, first the Intel engineer thinks he's qualified to say the AMD results may not be representitive of the product when it's released, then counters with a demonstration of a chip cherry picked from 100K units. Hypocrisy and fail in one easy PR exercise. Quite sad and childish really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
Hey if it means that somebody at Intel got worried at least a little bit about what this new AMD chip can do then it's nice to see. Now we have some real competition going on between the 2 and we all benefit from it. Intel might be going a little far to come out and say they are cherry picking and tweaking the chip to push it harder but who cares? I wanna see what she can do!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
To the best of my understanding, the issue is not electrical resistance, the issue is capacitive reactance between data lines. Crosstalk between data lines on a pcb, is a function of distance between data lines, length of data lines, and the frequency of the data lines. While keeping the data line trace at a fixed width, cross talk will then be a function of length and frequency. In decreasing the length of the data run by co-locating two GPUs on a single card, one can increase the data rate (frequency) between both GPUs before crosstalk becomes a factor, thus failure. In all serious, at the very high frequencies of data transmission in todays PCs, mere millimeters make a difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
Chew
Well that maybe what it says on paper but we find out what happens in the real world in a few months .(This is all in fun not trying to talking trash)
Here my 3dmark-06 compare link to check it out if you want http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=8806648 and vantage http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=8806648 by ORB i hold the high score for Phenom and 3850s video cards .
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by mnemonix
Yes, but say they get 6301Mhz out of it. Not that I would care, but then we've another rush of said fanboys and arrogant Intel PR's trash'n and troll'n trough our threads. Not saying Im afraid for this Intel OC test or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bgriffs
It's just the fact some guy at a forum is bragging around and now they're going to 'prove' him right by, well, cherry picking from 100K units. I mean, I never saw Tony trashing over other well known brands, nor saaya or any other of these guys.
In the mean time everyone seems to forget AMD broke its own WR with Phenom II by a huge leap. We've seen P4 8Ghz already, I'd be impressed if i7 got near or over it. But lets face it, 6Ghz on an AMD CPU or an Intel CPU makes quite a big difference regarding accomplishments. At least for me.
ORB dosen't have my cpu clock speed right in 3dmark-06 it was at 3.375 mhz. That not my hightest score just the hightest on approved drivers .
http://www.gamestar.de/hardware/test...nom_ii_x4.html
http://images.gamestar.de/images/idg...86174/449x.jpgQuote:
Unreal Tournament 3 shows the potential of the new Phenom II-series: Running at identical clock speeds of 2.7 GHz the simulated Phenom II X4 clearly beats the (overclocked) Phenom X4 9950 BE: 175.1 to 129.5 FPS in 1280x1024 and 167.6 to 128.2 FPS in 1680x1050 using high detail settings. But the Core i7 920 with its slightly lower clock speed of 2.66 GHz is still ahead of the Phenom II with 202.4 to 175.1 FPS (1280x1024) and 188,1 to 167.6 FPS (1680x1050).
In Call of Duty 4 the new Phenom II X4 is slower than its predecessor for no apparent reason. Even though we double-checked the BIOS and the game settings, the Phenom II X4 only managed 117.3 FPS (1280x1024) compared to the Phenom X4 9950 BE with 126.8 FPS, both using the same settings. This gap can also be seen in 1680x1050 with 106.8 (Phenom II X4) to 119.2 FPS (Phenom X4 9950 BE).
The internal benchmark of the compression tool WinRAR confirms the performance advantage of the Phenom X4 compared to its predecessor seen in Unreal Tournament 3 – with 1,528 KB/s it compresses data noticeably faster than the Phenom X4 9950 BE with 1,318 KB/s, both running with identical clock speeds. In optimized multimedia applications like WinRAR, Intel managed to almost double the performance going from Core 2 to Core i7 (see: Core i7 put to the test (in German)). AMD doesn't achieve anything similar with the Phenom II X4 – but that's no surprise given that there are hardly any technical differences between both generations of Phenom processors.
one simply must love those desktop simulations on the Opteron part... pfff
I don't think any of those predictions will prove to be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzman
Penryn is AMD's true rival, i7 is not the main game here.
And you don't need em pfff. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
I doubt that, but it leaves some material for yet another round of speculation fun ;) A real PII 920 on a normal 790 "should be almost" close to the i7 920 which would be perfectly fine for me, I wouldn't ask for more.Quote:
... hence the gaming performance of the Opteron 2384 should be almost identical to the Phenom II X4.
edit: talking about that ut3 chart here.
But there are penryn parts costing more than Ci7 in all price segments. How does intel reduce penryn prices without reducing Ci7 prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
On another note, that graph looks quite familiar. Maybe a firmware update would give PII some nice speed bump. :shrug:
I certainly hope AMD can get back on its feet with this generation of processors.
Although OC'ing that Opteron is no solid Deneb review, it does give a certain uideline as of how Deneb would perform;)
I think i7 because of the market space Intel is trying to position it in will be off in it's own little world in respect of pricing, however I expect Penryn pricing will be adjusted to reflect i7's introduction and any new improved competitive position from AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Looking at that chart according my calculations... Using Q6600 as the base, as Q9650 as the top. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by justapost
That Opteron 2384 ("Phenom II X4") 2.7GHz is roughly equivalent to a 2.7GHz Core 2 Quad, clock-to-clock wise in UT3. :up:
why DX9 ? that is so lame to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by justapost
they where also getting scores like that on i7 because of immature bios. where the older core 2 qaud where out doing them.
lets not for get that the operton is bottleneck with suck a low HT and L3 cache lock. I know most of you proably think thats not goign to matter but test show there can be 1-5% with change in both of those.
What stopped Intel from doing that before? Intel ALWAYS base their pricing on Clock Speed/Multi/and Cache.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
what happens in cod4?
http://images.gamestar.de/images/idg...86175/449x.jpg
Best wait for real reviews, Honestly doubt p2 will be slower than p1.