I'm not even arguing about that so I don't see what your point is.
Printable View
I'm not even arguing about that so I don't see what your point is.
Funny, Hammer IMC can be "ganged" albeit the term "128-bit ganged operation" means two independent 64bit ctrls co-operate effectively acting as a 128bit ctrl.Quote:
Originally Posted by AMD
But, this not worth arguing, it's just semantics.
It's Japanese, not Chinese.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Intel doing better than AMD is not a surprise, since Intel is quite a few times larger than AMD and has more than twice its R&D budget. AMD doing better than Intel certainly is. If AMD does better than Intel, then that just goes to show you how ineffective Intel is, right?
Real World Quad FX Speed & AgilityQuote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Our real world testing today disproves my preconceptions entirely, and shows that in quite a few cases, the FX-74 is as fast, or even faster than the QX6700. We ran the numbers over and over again, and the FX-74 simply has the horsepower to compete with the QX6700 in the most CPU intensive applications. When the systems are completely maxed out and you’re running rendering, encoding, or multi-media applications, the difference between the two CPU’s is quite minimal, usually between 1 and 3 percent.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...VudGh1c2lhc3Q=
Thats not even K8L thats just what a K8 quad core would be like. Now if K8L is 40% faster the K8's how do you think york needs to run to beat K8L on just 2.9ghz. York will need 3.73ghz...oooops... thats what intel will do.
http://badhardware.blogspot.com/2006...y-rainier.html
Then 3.5ghz K8L will counter york with. Also to run HT3 at full speed 2.6ghz on the link is needed requireing 3.5ghz from the cpu cores. The math looks right according to this. Right now conroe is just 10 to 20% faster then K8's. In the real world its almost none at all. What do you thinks going to happen when K8L starts running at 3.5ghz stock? Its still 20% to 30% faster then core2 arcs. York can't do it then. They need core3 to win. However a new amd ark was announched for 2008, when that comes will core3 be enough to counter AMD's new ark?
AMD is only 1 to 3% slower then C2D now because of 4x4. What happens when you put 2 K8L's in that 4x4 it makes it a 8x8. Intel is going to have a hard time being better now at this rate. They need to lower QX6700 price if they want to stay ahead. AMD's are cheaper then ever. AMD is doing just fine infact they are not loseing at all. The benchmarks are in the link... 1 to 3% difference faster or slower then QFX can not be even close to a difference. Stop over hypeing C2D, QFX is a match for it from what we see now. Stop lieing don't lie to yourself its just childish. We see the truth. QFX is no better or worse then QX6700. They all have there advantages and disadvantages.
It is clear they are only 1 to 3% different from eachother. That is not stoming all over AMD that is barly keeping the lead agenst a much cheaper solution. Its a struggle. Stop kidding yourselfs. And when K8L makes 4x4 into 8x8 then we will see whos laughing. But all I need to do is drop a K8L into my AM2 without any mobo changing. If you want Quad core you need a new mobo not me. Intel needs CSI and Core 3 to compete with a 3.5ghz K8L. Cus york isn't enough. They wouldn't raise the core 800mhz for no reason X6800's will be killed by a K8L at 2.7ghz with only 2 cores. Thats Intel being scared, kind of extreme to raise the speed to such crazy speeds. If you think a X6800 will compare to K8L your wrong.
Thats why they are making york to stay compeditive until Core3 and csi. Then AMD will be in trouble again. However AMD isn't sitting around after K8L they have another ark that will be much better then K8L and its been in devenopment since 2003. K10 was canceled partually in favor for K8L a mix of K10 and some new ideas, replaced with K11 the new ark will be out in the end of 2008.
Somewhat true. But the QFX uses 50% more power! AMD should've just waited and released it's native quadcore cpu. No need to keep up with Intel on the quadcore front using 90nm technology.Quote:
We see the truth. QFX is no better or worse then QX6700
http://www.amd.com/quadcoredemo
K8L performance comparison
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/5162/amd1fe5.jpg
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/1534/amd2tt9.jpg
as i promised )) suppose it's not all for december
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/282/amd3jj1.jpg
Yeah, that's pretty lame on AMD's part. Any demo would've been better than task manager.Quote:
Too bad AMD didn't run ONE SINGLE D$#@ BENCHMARK today. Just TASK MANAGER.
ROFLMAO!!! I've never before seen one person be so completely wrong on so many different points in one post before! Congrats! :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by Serge84
You're not mentally challenged are you? I only ask because I wouldn't feel right about laughing so hard at you if you were.
In AMD's defense, it was clearly the best they could manage this early in K8L's development.Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
Gotta love the estimated performance. No test is even run, just some guesses and ofcourse something that had to be better. Looks pretty sad if it ships around or after 45nm Intel products and it can barely if even beat todays Intel offerings.
2 x 3ghz 90nm K8s in dual socket beat Intel's QuadCore offerings today in 3d rendering and other
strongly multithreaded apps, the Altairs will simply crush them, be it on 45nm :P
Yeah, and they (90nm K8's) overclock to 3.5GHz with ease as well....:rofl: :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by alayashu
Oh my, yes. Take the one review that supports your hopes and dreams, dismiss all the others, horrendous power consumption and jet aircraft landing noise levels and dream the fanboy dream... I hope you buy a 4x4 rig, I sincerely do... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by alayashu
Fred, the 1500$ QX6700 its barely faster than than the 599$ FX70 in Cinebench, under Vista and it gets its ass kicked by the FX72 and FX74.
http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/cpu...ench_vista.png
The problem with XP is that it handles NUMA like :banana:, unlike Vista, therefore on Vista all the AMD dual socket systems (including QuadFX) get a nice performance boost.
-e
it was vista64 allready lol :>
That's not NUMA, that's from going into 64-bit mode. Cinebench is almost completely non-depedent on bandwidth, memory latency or cache size. How come there isn't a NUMA boost for the big megatasking test? In fact, it slows down.Quote:
Originally Posted by alayashu
http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/cpu...megatask_1.png
http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/cpu...sk_1_vista.png
And I bet NUMA won't stop the FX-74 from getting beat by the FX-62 in the vast majority of game benches.
QX6700 is faster in anything else...so unless you render in cinebench day and night. And if you do, who pays your power consumption? Also QX6700 aint 1500$. But its 999$, else FX70 aint 599$ and you still need a 480$ board and a super PSU vs normal cheap board and a standard PSU.Quote:
Originally Posted by alayashu
Maybe check techreport..they used XP64, or 2003 NUMA so to say:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q4...x/index.x?pg=1
You are grasping for straws :rolleyes:
And we all buy 4x4 for workstation tasks right? We wouldnt buy a dual opteron system or dual xeon for that. What an odd thought! And AMD markets 4x4 as a GAMING PLATFORM.
NUMA and the chained HT structure is the reason FX62 beats it silly in games. I think alot of people missunderstand what NUMA is about. Its alot faster for the CPU to fetch data via its own IMC than it is to travel over HT and through another IMC. Core<->IMC got alot more BW than HT can deliver and therefor gets a performance loss whiles its located remote. So want NUMA performance? Run some independent threads (Not game) that can use local memory of its host CPU. NUMA is alot nicer when its not the same workingset ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
Also there aint much HT bandwidth left in heavy multitask either, when CPUO needs to travel over HT (That it shares memory with CPU1 with) to reach chipset A and B that it again shares HT links with and chipsetB yet again get shared. CPU0->CPU1->ChipsetA->ChipsetB. Oh ye, it reminds me of old BNC networks! Clumsy design.
put QuadSLI on it and it's the ultimate gaming platform at ultimate price, hehe :DQuote:
And we all buy 4x4 for workstation tasks right? We wouldnt buy a dual opteron system or dual xeon for that. What an odd thought! And AMD markets 4x4 as a GAMING PLATFORM.
Though it would be nice to see some next gen multithreaded games on Vista64 /w QuadFX vs Kentsfield.
I bet the difference will be much lower than the most optimistic voices have said.
And the platform itself is nice for rendering guys, it performs impressively well
for its price, but mainly the upgradability to Octo Barcelona/Altair is what
probably will get AMD more sales than expected towards this category.
QuadSLi is useful for what? Even 8800GTX SLI on anything but 30"+ is a waste. Also the quadsli might be impacted by the 2 extra slots being 8x and the starved HT links.Quote:
Originally Posted by alayashu
Multithreaded games is still the same workingset, means NUMA is a problem rather than a benefit.
Also working in the animation business and making international movies. 4x4 is not nice for rendering guys, its too expensive to buy and run, too crappy, to
much of a spaceheater. Try use Maya or something and you see 4x4 get beaten badly. Even 3DsMax is not good. But for some reason people focus on cinebench...
And the upgrade path? You mean the AM2+ socket quadcores where you need a new 4x4 board not to get hit by yet another performance penalty stick? :fact:
in maya/mentalray the difference in the favour of QuadFX is the biggest among all the rendering softwares.Quote:
Also working in the animation business and making international movies. 4x4 is not nice for rendering guys, its too expensive to buy and run, too crappy, to much of a spaceheater. Try use Maya or something and you see 4x4 get beaten badly. Even 3DsMax is not good. But for some reason people focus on cinebench...
About the maya software/max scanline renderers, they are old poorly multithreaded softwares, as you probably know.
Cinebench9.5 reflects pretty good the performance CPUs in modern renderers as mentalray, vray, prman, etc.
true, not many need QuadSLI, not even DualSLI, not even QuadCPU, not even DualCPU. But the options exists for those who know they need them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
remains to be seen ;)Quote:
Multithreaded games is still the same workingset, means NUMA is a problem rather than a benefit.
watch the official AMD presentation, they say it clear all you'll have to doQuote:
And the upgrade path? You mean the AM2+ socket quadcores where you need a new 4x4 board not to get hit by yet another performance penalty stick? :fact:
is to change the 2x2C K8s with the new 2x 4C Barcelonas and update the
mainboard Bios. And they say it clear that there wont be any performance
penalty nor power consumption or whatever problems with it.
C2D/Woodcrest/Kentsfield/Clovertown here beats K8 silly in Maya. But maybe its the 8way dualcore opteron systems that sucks :(Quote:
Originally Posted by alayashu
Just remind me again WHY you would even run quadsli. And then remind me again what GFX cards CAN run quadsli and with what drivers. (GX2 cards dont count, it needs to be 4 single cards).Quote:
Originally Posted by alayashu
Nope, the FX62 making a joke out of even FX74 in all cases where its 2 threads or less is what is to be seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by alayashu
I never said you couldn´t do it. But using old HT instead of HT3 in dual quadcore..lol! Its like comparing Merom and Conroe and say FSB speed doesnt matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by alayashu
show me one single bench of maya/mentalray with an 3ghz Woodcrest vs 3ghz QuadFX (even if the second setupQuote:
C2D/Woodcrest/Kentsfield/Clovertown here beats K8 silly in Maya. But maybe its the 8way dualcore opteron systems that sucks
costs near twice less money) under Vista64 in wich the Woodcrest wins hands down.
Oh, and using all the cores, 4 threads please, and a full raytracing 10mil displaced polys scene, not a sphere or such.
Quad Monitor Setup it's a pleasure to work with in heavy scenes while animating, modelingQuote:
Just remind me again WHY you would even run quadsli.
and rendering in Maya and working with Photoshop on the textures :rolleyes:
/* the end with this postcount++ OT */
You really hang on to Vista64 dont you? You think its the saviour that will rescue 4x4 from looking crappy? Vista64 dont offer superduperultradeluxe new NUMA performance boost. We talk <1%.Quote:
Originally Posted by alayashu
How is it SLI and just dual monitors work out?Quote:
Originally Posted by alayashu
In this context they're referring to having 2 DIMMs working together to get 128 bit mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by largon
Details can be important too.Quote:
Originally Posted by largon