AMD Shanghai/Deneb Review Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

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:

---

Well off course i7 is faster than a PhII no one expected anything else "Clock to clock" but as OP has stated the PhII has a OC advantage over the i7 :rolleyes:

The HT does slow down some game and speeds up others while on GTA4 i dont think it has any type of impact. As i stated above i think even after disabling HT GTA4 will read the CPU with 8 imaginary cores!!!

22% means real 44% cpu utilization see my post above.....:yepp:
Still in price to performance Phenom II is better as compared to i7 platform

iocedmyself

What are the BIOS default clocks for NB and HT?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

Well off course i7 is faster than a PhII no one expected anything else "Clock to clock" but as OP has stated the PhII has a OC advantage over the i7 :rolleyes:

The HT does slow down some game and speeds up others while on GTA4 i dont think it has any type of impact. As i stated above i think even after disabling HT GTA4 will read the CPU with 8 imaginary cores!!!

22% means real 44% cpu utilization see my post above.....:yepp:
Still in price to performance Phenom II is better as compared to i7 platform

---

If HT is turned off, Windows can only 'see' 4 cores (or threads). Do you know something we don't? If GTA IV can only run on 3 threads, what's the use to enable HT? To cheat? :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

If HT is turned off, Windows can only 'see' 4 cores (or threads). Do you know something we don't? If GTA IV can only run on 3 threads, what's the use to enable HT? To cheat? :shrug:

---

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=385

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=385

---

What's your point? That's the Phenom II benchmark, and the chip has no HT (read hyperthreading). :shrug:

My point was that setting affinity to ONE CORE results in similar results as i7.

Now, that means per core i7 gets 11% utilized as compared to 19% for the PhII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

My point was that setting affinity to ONE CORE results in similar results as i7.

Now, that means per core i7 gets 11% utilized as compared to 19% for the PhII.

---

Okay, I'm not going to drag this on any further since you can't see my point. What's the use of crippling the cpu, then try to validate the result?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Okay, I'm not going to drag this on any further since you can't see my point. What's the use of crippling the cpu, then try to validate the result?

---

Its more that you cant understand his point or are not willing to see it. Its his point and not yours again...

Plz stop being rude to another users :down: , Go back to the intel forum plz!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaidev

Well off course i7 is faster than a PhII no one expected anything else "Clock to clock" but as OP has stated the PhII has a OC advantage over the i7 :rolleyes:

The HT does slow down some game and speeds up others while on GTA4 i dont think it has any type of impact. As i stated above i think even after disabling HT GTA4 will read the CPU with 8 imaginary cores!!!

22% means real 44% cpu utilization see my post above.....:yepp:
Still in price to performance Phenom II is better as compared to i7 platform

---

Yes i have to agree that the HT is most likely to be the culprit for 22% cpu load, either that or the power saving feature is disabling several of the cores and still counting it as 4 physical or 8 logical threads. Easy way to tell, look in task manager in the performance tab, if it is showing 8 devisions than GTA is calculating based on 8 cores.

I7 has better ram, but gimped caches horrible power consumption (total system draw, not counting the disabled core crap) It's expensive for little real world performance gain and there is little if any overclocking room.

We're looking at raw performance here in gaming not efficiency. There is at 3.6ghz comparison results showing i7 has less than 10% performance gain over phenom II regardless of cpu load. The difference is that 3.6 is the glass cieling, or damn near for i7 where AMD still has anywhere from 400-1000mhz headroom to overclock....with air cooling alone. Plus anyone that is going to be using an I7 or a phenom II at an early stage, especially with a 4870x2 is going to have considerably better than a 1280x1024 display i would think.

Upgrading to I7 means new cpu, heatsink, motherboard as well as DDR3.

Phenom II means....if you already have an AM2+ board you buy a phenom II and at most update your bios. If i had to spend the cash to upgrade.....i know what would be more appealing from all angles

Luckily i won't have to trouble my mind with such thoughts :p:

But Zucker i do see your point and whether HT is enabled or not on the I7 is just guess work on ALL our parts. As well as the fact that things like car density and shadow density settings are unknown and those could be set at 0 which would easily lighten CPU load. But then again the system specs are completly unkown based off that screeny so not really much is certain, if i missed a further detailed explination of the system that bench was done on please correct me, not trying to bait anyone or deny any evidence, just admiting that i've been somewhat preoccupied and using only that screeny as a basis there is a lot left up in the air that could effect the results. :shrug:

As to the point of enabling HT and then "crippling the cpu" With the way the I7 power saving features work it could just disable some cores, GTA takes into account the existence of all of them and performance results are....creative. They could be accurate but i don't think anyone can deny the fact that when it comes to intel benches, they have not always been on the level in the past. Nor the fact that 22% cpu load at 60 FPS is going to impress people, and if they can show those results why wouldn't they? Besides it may TECHNICALLY be true, but it may be taken out of context as to how those results were obtained

But i can't deny that intel may have improved ability to offload more to the GPU at lower resolutions which also could account for the low utilization. If you'll notice Cpu load on phenom II drops from 70% at 12x10 to 57% at 19x12 at same detail settings, and higher resoltions are more what im interested in.

At any rate not trying to get into a flame war, just trying to shed some light on Denebs as very best i can independent of I7 numbers, and speculation will almost certainly result in hair pulling and name calling with no one winning.

Oliverda, Bios default clocks for NB is 2ghz, HT is also 2ghz @ 200x10

My heatsink through out all testing has been TT DuoOrb http://www.thermaltakeusa.com/Produc...1&ID=1748#Tab4

Though i've finally decided that it is time to break down and break into the realm of water cooling, So i'm about to invest in this Swiftech Apogee GTZ water block

http://www.martinsliquidlab.com/Swif...TZ_Review.html

http://xcpus.com/GetDoc.aspx?doc=69&page=1

And the Swiftech MCP655 adjustable Pump
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1363

So I should hopefully get around to putting this chip of many shines under water definitely before xmas, hopefully ill have it running by the coming weekend so i can shoot for a stable 5ghz.

After new years, i'll have a more fun endeavor to undertake...well two actually. The more certain of tasks will be setting up a water chiller for the Reservoir with a pair of under-volted 12730 each will have power req at around 8V drawing 12A and moves about 40W across 30C. heat load is about 160W. with a 5 pound nickle plated copper Melcor sink that is a rise of 9C. Two should do a fine job on a deneb... around a 300W heat load total, control for 5C water.

The less certain and more fun task will be the old joy of slapping a TEC right on the CPU (btw 3.0ghz at 1.1v has a TDP of around 55-60w) So that water block over a beefy TEC will yield some negative C

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iocedmyself

Oliverda, Bios default clocks for NB is 2ghz, HT is also 2ghz @ 200x10

---

Thanks, and the default Vcore is 1.35V if I'm not mistaken. Am I right?

I wouldent take those % cpu useage for granted as GTA 4 is a pretty buggy game, the last bechmark i would trust would be a GTA4 other than the fps ingame useing Fraps and some kind of cpu monitor.Have anyone of you noticed it only shows 3 cores in use within windows btw?.. Anyways looks like i will go for amd next as a spring project ... I wonder how well the ddr3 wil inpact the performance as well ...

@iocedmyself; thanks for everything. I just saw something I thought I might bring up. I just wish some on these forums have the objectivity you've just demonstrated. I'm not here to bash any cpu, or manufacturer, just to point out the facts as I see it. Kudos fr your efforts; this is how peeps make names for themselves, by showing us the early figures, though admittedly, even these would improve over time as process matures. :up:

If memory performance is good ddr3 will allow massive bandwidth along the lines of tri channel ddr3 for nehalem.

Yes the default vcore from all those with samples has been shown to be 1.35v...some of you need to read a few pages back before you ask questions.

Not trying to be mean, but some ?'s have been answered time and time again through the thread both in text and screenshots.

Its sometimes pointless to compare amd and intel , it always ends up into a AMD vs Intel , which we are just trying to see performance between the 2 chips many would like to know how phenom II performs , so please ppl take the Vs to another thread and leave this one alone for ppl who wants information about the new Phenom II . Personally I just want to know its + and - . and thank you all for the info so far . So please intel lovers " no pun intended " let the AMD gurus do their job so we can enjoy the new phenom II . And caveman , let the guy ask questions theres nothing wrong with it , not everyone has the time to scroll 17 pages of info .

Again good job guys on the phenom II info keep up the good work .

Oliverda yes, 1.35 is rated stock though as has been shown, it's a bit erring on the side of caution on AMD's part since these chips undervolt very nicely as well as overclock with little or no voltage bump to some very surprising frequencies.

Yeah GTA IV seems to be buggy i'll admit, but it happened to be what i've been killing time playing latey as well as the fact that it has an in game bench. Though as i was watching task manager during benches on second display i did notice a couple things.

One, during the bench all four cours have the load split pretty evenly across them.

Two, the benchmark cpu utilization report seems to show the MAXIMUM cpu load, not the average load. From what i saw the cpu load was staying between 40 and 50%, largely only jumping up to the reported load a few times during the benchmark, so something to take into consideration. But yes i need to bench some other games, and have been working towards reinstalling everything to that end

Zucker, i am very very pleased to be able to provide these surprisingly delightful results, thanks for the interest and to everyone else as well for the enthusiasm and interest in the performance of the latest from AMD. Ill admit i've been less than unbiased towards AMD in the past but i'm trying to stay objective here and let the results speak for themselves. I also think it important to consider that the phenom II's and dragon platform was not aimed at the performance crown, but more mainstream market with room for us overclocking OCD types or "enthusiasts" if you will. AMD seems to look more at the entire picture in terms of cost, upgrade paths, power consumption, power efficiency as well as performance, and they have shown in my mind anyway remarkable improvements over the Phenom 1 chips all around. The power consumption clockability and performance was even a suprise to AMD's own people from what i've read so their is only room for refinement, these are just the early chips that are popping up with 4-4.5ghz air clocks and 6.2 LN cooled. So 5 with water is looking promising.

Which i plan to start working on very soon. =)

Also pushing past 1.5 on air doesn't seem to show results that scale well, however as others have said these chips adore the cold.


But for now i need to hit my own sleep button as i've been stress tested for 24h now =P Tomorrow i will be finishing up and posting game benchs and start pushing the clock up a bit, tomorrow seems like a good day to bench 3.8.

iocedmyself don't forget 3dmark 06 at default resolution pleasee!!!..have a sweet dreams..jeje! Tomorrow seems a long testing day...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lo squartatore

IOECEDMYSELF

[B]I have only 4 fast questions :

1 ) What is your air heatsink ?B]

---

He has already answered this question:

My heatsink through out all testing has been TT DuoOrb http://www.thermaltakeusa.com/Produc...1&ID=1748#Tab4

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oliverda

He has already answered this question:

My heatsink through out all testing has been TT DuoOrb http://www.thermaltakeusa.com/Produc...1&ID=1748#Tab4

:rolleyes:

---

Uh oh, File or directory not found :( Please fix link :)

http://www.thermaltakeusa.com/Produc...8&ID=1748#Tab0
:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iocedmyself

(btw 3.0ghz at 1.1v has a TDP of around 55-60w)

---

How are you estimating that TDP? If that's true, it's going to be neck-and-neck with penryn consumption(assuming you undervolt) at the CPU level, on the system level it ought to be less considering the IMC in the AMD, and the Intel NB's using a bit more power than an AMD.

I guess he used the Vcore^3 and 125W for stock TDP as the most accurate way since it takes into account leakage currents too.This way you come near the 60W mark(68W to be precise ,but with VRM efficiency taken into account too,it is near 55-60W for the chip alone).