AMD Shanghai/Deneb Review Thread

3.6ghz 3dmark 06 1920x1200

Don't recall off hand what score i got with 9850, and i'm unsure as to whether or not the PCI-E slot is running as gen 2.0 or not , but thought i'd share regardless

Right. Now someone compare those benchies to an i7 running the same graphics card and clock speed... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lo squartatore

can u ask you a Crysis or crysis warhead DX9 benchmark ?

1605 x 1050 or 1280 x 1024 in enthusiams for warhead or high for Crysis
AA 0x

it's the most important test

---

Have to reinstall it and then i'll bench dx9 and 10. Though i have to say that i don't consider DX9 very accurate measurment as ATI 4800 cards do vastly better in DX10 where Nvidia is more geared towards DX9.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iocedmyself

Have to reinstall it and then i'll bench dx9 and 10. Though i have to say that i don't consider DX9 very accurate measurment as ATI 4800 cards do vastly better in DX10 where Nvidia is more geared towards DX9.

---

Thanks iocedmyself, great work you're doing here. That first score at 3.6Ghz didn't look pretty for the phenom II though, as it was 22% percent i7 (no one in their right mind would turn HT on for gaming, that anomally is well established), vs Phenom II 70%. Am I the only one noticing that huge gap? Are you sure no other process was stealing huge cpu cycles? Good job man, keep up the good work.

3.4ghz 2ghz NB & HT view 34 detail 100 @ 1680x1050 @ 60hz

hey iocedmyself any differences when running 64 bit ?

Phenom II 940 preorder 279,90€ (FINLAND)
ETA 7th of January 2009

940 http://www.verkkokauppa.com/popups/p...o.php?id=31641

920 http://www.verkkokauppa.com/popups/p...o.php?id=31559

Well this is what i get if i set affinity to ONE CORE, with view distance 22 and detail distance 70 @ 3ghz. So if i7 has 8 threads to toy with....not that difficult to see how you could get 22% with 60fps when there is the core shutdown stuff. But regardless it's not about how much of the CPU is utilized it's the performance you get out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iocedmyself

Well this is what i get if i set affinity to ONE CORE, with view distance 22 and detail distance 70 @ 3ghz. So if i7 has 8 threads to toy with....not that difficult to see how you could get 22% with 60fps when there is the core shutdown stuff. But regardless it's not about how much of the CPU is utilized it's the performance you get out of it.

---

8 threads is not the same as 8 cores; besides the game has to be able to utilize 8 threads. Let's assume it does, that's still 44% compared to 70%. The point I'm trying to make is an efficiency, clock/clock in game comparison. The available headroom on i7 is huge and should not be ignored since this is a comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

8 threads is not the same as 8 cores; besides the game has to be able to utilize 8 threads. Let's assume it does, that's still 44% compared to 70%. The point I'm trying to make is an efficiency, clock/clock in game comparison. The available headroom on i7 is huge and should not be ignored since this is a comparison.

---

maybe it's the fact that is reads 4 core so it thinks well here 4 threads. so since it's has 8 threads but only 4 cores. maybe the code isn't totally working out there is 8 threads, because it's only 4 cores.

need to see this game a 8 core server system with Shanghai's too then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

8 threads is not the same as 8 cores; besides the game has to be able to utilize 8 threads. Let's assume it does, that's still 44% compared to 70%. The point I'm trying to make is an efficiency, clock/clock in game comparison. The available headroom on i7 is huge and should not be ignored since this is a comparison.

---

You are quite wrong the game "GTA4" takes HT as added cores as in total of 8 CORE's on an i7 :eek: The reason why it does not show up as 42 instead of the seen 21 is that HT just sits on its arse doing noting "HT will do noting great if enabled or disabled"

So the game thinks its running on a 8 Core computer and compute scores for all 8 so called cores or threads. So if first on is at 40, second at 40, third at 40 and forth also at 40 but the HT all at 0, this will give you a result of amm 20% overall utilization. :ROTF:

Now besides this you do know that the game IDs my Q6600 as a PIII Xeon :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

You are quite wrong the game "GTA4" takes HT as added cores as in total of 8 CORE's on an i7 :eek: The reason why it does not show up as 42 instead of the seen 21 is that HT just sits on its arse doing noting "HT will do noting great if enabled or disabled"

So the game thinks its running on a 8 Core computer and compute scores for all 8 so called cores or threads. So if first on is at 40, second at 40, third at 40 and forth also at 40 but the HT all at 0, this will give you a result of amm 20% overall utilization. :ROTF:

Now besides this you do know that the game IDs my Q6600 as a PIII Xeon :shakes:

---

Are we assuming that they run the benchmark with HT on then? ;) Because that'll usually lead to lower scores/fps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Thanks iocedmyself, great work you're doing here. That first score at 3.6Ghz didn't look pretty for the phenom II though, as it was 22% percent i7 (no one in their right mind would turn HT on for gaming, that anomally is well established), vs Phenom II 70%. Am I the only one noticing that huge gap? Are you sure no other process was stealing huge cpu cycles? Good job man, keep up the good work.

---

Simple explanation:

GTA IV can spawn 3 threads which can utilize CPU fairly well. For that reason Single, Dual and Triple-Core will show CPU utilization close to 100%!
Quad-Core will be utilized in 75% assuming no other thread is using it and GTA IV will extract everything from remaining 3 cores.
Six-Core CPU will hit max. 50% utilization.
8 cores/threads can be utilized 37% by GTA IV!
Now Core i7 is not hitting close to theoretical 37% and the reason for that can be either HT lowering utilization or GPU saturation (in other words CPU too fast for a given GPU).

Is that clear enough? :)

3.0 ghz, 2ghz NB 2ghz HT 47 draw distance 100 detail distance 100 car density 16 shadow density 1920x1200 = 40.19fps

3.6 ghz, 2ghz NB 2ghz HT 34 draw distance 100 detail distance 100 car density 16 shadow density 1920x1200 = 31.97fps

did you turn of a core or two at 3.6?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lo squartatore

the draw distance is most important for cpu.
very HARD setting !

---

as i see it,lesser the draw distance lesser the fps.either this benchmark is BS or there was some other factor reducing the framerates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lightman

Simple explanation:

GTA IV can spawn 3 threads which can utilize CPU fairly well. For that reason Single, Dual and Triple-Core will show CPU utilization close to 100%!
Quad-Core will be utilized in 75% assuming no other thread is using it and GTA IV will extract everything from remaining 3 cores.
Six-Core CPU will hit max. 50% utilization.
8 cores/threads can be utilized 37% by GTA IV!
Now Core i7 is not hitting close to theoretical 37% and the reason for that can be either HT lowering utilization or GPU saturation (in other words CPU too fast for a given GPU).

Is that clear enough? :)

---

Are you sure those settings are maxing the GPU? I don't think those settings are very gpu-bound. In any case, your last statement takes nothing from what I said; if the i7's HT is the culprit, meaning the cpu is taking a negative hit, the results are still better than the PHII :yepp: And if the gpu is maxed, then are you saying it takes only 22% of the processing power of a Ci7 at 3.6ghz to max the a 4870x2 with GTA IV? Or are you leaning towards the unknown? :shrug:

The cpu score in 3dmark 06 is very low. I saw yesterday an screenshot of 3dmark 06, with a phenom II 940 @ 3,8Ghz, 5700 pts in cpu score, here:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...=210814&page=2

Then the score of iocedmyself with his phenom II 940 @ 3,6Ghz is the same that you would get with a phenom 9850 @ 3,3 GHZ, here:

http://service.futuremark.com/result...eResultType=14

So I wonder what's wrong, iocedmyself's ram timings are not good but I think the score should be better than that, what do you think guys?

I mistakenly thought i had shadow density and car density maxed in the 3.0 one, i did not, they were maxed in the 3.6 which creates a heavy performance hit.

as for 3dmark 06 i was benching at 1920x1200, not the default 1280x1024, will rerun default momentarily

on vista 64 (not tuned to performance at all) i get ~4500 cpu points on 3dmark06 with cpu@3.36ghz nb@2400 mem@950/4.4.4.12 and bumping cpu up to 3.44ghz in only get ~4600 cpu points... i was getting ~5000 on xp32 @ 3.36