Intel Q9450 vs Phenom 9850 - ATI HD3870 X2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

Dude, your link proves his argument.... almost the whole document is discussing CPU and GPU bottlnecking....

What part do you not understand?

---

Yes that paper discuss CPU AND GPU bottlenecks. And how you decrease bottlenecks. But where do you see that that one bottleneck stands for 100% of the total time? If you have a video card running at 2000 GHz it will maybe render the picture in notime. Almost all time that needs to render the picture will be the processor time. But even if the GPU is extremely fast it will need to add a fraction of the total time.
If you have something that is slow you will of course look for areas that takes most time. But even if something takes very much time it doesn't use 100% of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

What the hell are you talking about? First you say that game code is light on branches, I give you one case of a general algorithm that pins down how something as simple as shooting a weapon generates branches, then you say it does much more than that. [/B]

---

You could say something similar to any developer and they will immediately know that you haven't seen code. Code is so extremely detailed. Maybe you mean scripting, but there is a lot going on in the background.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

Gosh, frankly -- in all this discussion, it is becoming more and more clear you are pretty ignorant of how CPUs actually function, it is not worth my time any more.

---

You mean that you can't handle that someone doesn't agree with you or have knowledge that you could learn from?
Sofwaredevelopment is a VERY strong area form me, you know that I am working with it. I have been doing some teaching in advanced C++ for developers that already are good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

Sofwaredevelopment is a VERY strong area form me, you know that I am working with it. I have been doing some teaching in advanced C++ for developers that already are good.

---

Generally trying to brag on yourself really makes you look bad and less competent than you already do. If you know what you are talking about then it will be articulated in your argument not with resorting to bragging about yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

[B]

What the hell are you talking about? First you say that game code is light on branches, I give you one case of a general algorithm that pins down how something as simple as shooting a weapon generates branches, then you say it does much more than that.

Gosh, frankly -- in all this discussion, it is becoming more and more clear you are pretty ignorant of how CPUs actually function, it is not worth my time any more.

You will continue to spam forums and get the flack you get because of two reasons, you have a preconceived notion of what you think it does, and what reality is are two different things. The majority application of concepts are wrong. This is why you will always get flack from the community.

It would be worth your time to spend a bit more study into basic, fundamental computer science and unlearn what you think you have learned and re-establish yourself in the fundamentals.

Take care...

jack

---

i dont think he is really intersted in learning anything, he'll even i picked up some things, and computers are only my hobby.... from a person that works on a daly basis with such a device i would figure that would be interessted in how they work...

for myself i cant imagin to use any kind of "tool" whitout knowing how the principles work.


Anyways, i think everything worth mentioning has already been said, and now we are only running in circles, over and over again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

[B]
You will continue to spam forums and get the flack you get because of two reasons, you have a preconceived notion of what you think it does, and what reality is are two different things. The majority application of concepts are wrong. This is why you will always get flack from the community.

It would be worth your time to spend a bit more study into basic, fundamental computer science and unlearn what you think you have learned and re-establish yourself in the fundamentals.

Take care...

jack

---

Don't you think his spamming of forums is all related to his AMD fanaticism?

Everything he has been posting has been about trying to portray AMD in a better light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by highoctane

Generally trying to brag on yourself really makes you look bad and less competent than you already do. If you know what you are talking about then it will be articulated in your argument not with resorting to bragging about yourself.

---

Well if they do thats their problems. Most people are good at something. The problem in these debates is that is so extremely sensitive to talk about what Intel isn't that good at. If someone say something and that isn't right then it is even hard to point that out. And if you do they will react very immature sometimes.
What people thinks of me I don't give a **** ;) Maybe I did when I was young. You tend to grow away from those types of feelings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

Anyways, i think everything worth mentioning has already been said, and now we are only running in circles, over and over again.

---

it wasn't me who started this discussion again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chad Boga

Don't you think his spamming of forums is all related to his AMD fanaticism?

Everything he has been posting has been about trying to portray AMD in a better light.

---

There is nothing wrong with preferring AMD CPUs, and it is not fanaticism to argue AMD's strength. I don't see Gosh so much an AMD fanatical, rather I seem him utterly ignorant of the general workings of computer architecture (his assertion of being a world class programmer is meaningless, program code != architectural execution, and does to provide any specific insight into the behavior of a two different CPUs -- architecturally -- to execute that code).

Gosh truly believes in how he things things work, though it contradicts all the empirical benchmark data available as well as all the source material from both industry and academia that have been written on the topic.

If there is a measure of fanaticism in his approach it is his inability to accept what is currently true, Intel makes the better CPU -- IPC is better, clock speed is better, thermals are better ... he seems to see this as a dish against the quality of the Phenom -- which he shouldn't, the CPU is a fine CPU and an engineering accomplishment on many levels... it does not change the fact that Intel renders the computational result faster in this particular segment in time.

It was not long ago, of course, that the competitive positioning we see today was not true of the P4 vs A64 era a few years ago... and there are reasons for that situation as well. Myself, it is most about delving into the details of each architecture, be it P4, A64, Core, or Phenom because without a comparative analysis for sake of contrast, the salient details of the device do not shine through === for example, Intel currently being better with gaming code and the strength of the branch predictors as a result.

There are plenty of points of Intel's current implementations that are inferior to AMD's (Gosh loves to harp on the FSB, following along the AMD PR lines), which is true -- but not generally true, other architectural implementations remove the deficiencies (manifested in large, fast L2 cache for example) and only make it an issue in select applications (which is not gaming code as Gosh would want to believe).

AMD knows they have an inferior performing product, and have adjusted their pricing to hit a price to performance ratio that keeps them competitive, otherwise we would still be paying 650 bucks for a 5000+. Intel was in the same boat through most of 2003 to 2005. Unfortunately for AMD, their cost structure and revenue stream do not support profitability at these levels, and something has gotta give ... one of those things is AMD appears (based on rumor) ready to carve itself up to shore up capital and strengthen the balance sheet.

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

it wasn't me who started this discussion again

---

No, what I did was post a nice executed study by Legionhardware that demonstrated the reason why no site would use a Phenom to evaluate the 4870 X2.... if they had, then it would have shown the 4870 X2 performance to be the same as a 260 GTX -- since the Phenom would have capped all the highest end cards to the same framerate.

jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

Gosh truly believes in how he things things work

---

No I don't but I know how develop applications (it's my work). And seeing all this talk about this and that comparing CPU got me curious (I don't normally play games). What I have found is that this area is extremely hard to talk about. If do say anything good about AMD you will not be liked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

No I don't but I know how develop applications (it's my work). And seeing all this talk about this and that comparing CPU got me curious (I don't normally play games). What I have found is that this area is extremely hard to talk about. If do say anything good about AMD you will not be liked.

---

It's not about saying good things or bad things about one or the other, it is about arriving at the correct conclusion based on data.

Your original post showed a GPU limited test where Phenom was comparably at parity with Intel.... but you concluded that the CPU was equally good when the GPU was capping the result. This is false and incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

This is false and incorrect.

---

are you ever wrong?

EDIT:
I am working just now so not that much time to answer.
I was wrong about thinking that games used the higher resolutions to increase details etc. But what was found instead was that AMD in fact is a very good game processor. It isn't as good as intel on single threaded applications. Core 2 will be the best processor for those applications next year I think. Maybe 2010 it will be beaten in that area. Other processors can win if there is some special management like memory speed or something else that is needed.
BUT, even if Intel is better at single threaded applications games can be executed easily with processors done for threading. it isn't a problem.
The problem starts when games start to scale, not that much scaling and it isn't a problem but with more scaling it will soon be a problem. And the biggest problem is when the game needs to work hard (at the low fps areas).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

are you ever wrong?

---

He gave you system to system comparisons and even bought a 4870 x2 to give you real data to compare the two systems without a gpu bottleneck.

It's not a matter of blatantly saying you are right or wrong because the information is there to draw your own conclusion. He gave all of us the basic insight and raw information to be able to figure things out ourselves.

If you where to removed the name branding (intel/amd) off the systems and had to draw a conclusions of which system performed better overall in the tests performed the answer would be crystal clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by highoctane

He gave you system to system comparisons and even bought a 4870 x2 to give you real data to compare the two systems without a gpu bottleneck.

---

But it doesnt work that way. You could post some questions about bottlenecks here http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/

or check this: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=413

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

But it doesnt work that way. You could post some questions about bottlenecks here http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/

or check this: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=413

---

Don't reference yourself -- this is not an appropriate way to support an argument, what you posted is a hypothetical, and not all representative...

As the say goes "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime."

Well we should have just given the man a fish and moved along because the mans not willing to fish.

Isn't this discussion not yet closed after all the tests and co we saw ? Each CPU has it strenghts, all of them have flaws... to each his own...

Some people don't understand some things, some people don't understand a single word, and some people choose to not understand things depending on their opinion/strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

Don't reference yourself -- this is not an appropriate way to support an argument, what you posted is a hypothetical, and not all representative...

---

I tried to explain in that message so that was the reason for showing.
going back to that message. When some here say that the CPU bottlenecks the GPU. Is this what they mean.

+ = processor is working
- = video card is working

Slow processor
+++-----+++-----+++-----+++-----+++-----
Fast processor
-------------------------
Do you mean that if the processor is fast, then time spent by the processor isn't a factor. The only time that counts is the gpu

Or if you say that the video card is bottlenecked by the processor is it like this then?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What I have read is that cpu will always bottlneck the videocard and the videocard will always bottleneck the cpu. What is a bottleneck? If something use 5% of total time, is this a bottleneck? What we are arguing about is maybe when something is a bottleneck or I don't understand. It isn't possible to remove time completely from the processor or the video card

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

I tried to explain in that message so that was the reason for showing.
going back to that message. When some here say that the CPU bottlenecks the GPU. Is this what they mean.

+ = processor is working
- = video card is working

Slow processor
+++-----+++-----+++-----+++-----+++-----
Fast processor
-------------------------
Do you mean that if the processor is fast, then time spent by the processor isn't a factor. The only time that counts is the gpu

Or if you say that the video card is bottlenecked by the processor is it like this then?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What I have read is that cpu will always bottlneck the videocard and the videocard will always bottleneck the cpu. What is a bottleneck? If something use 5% of total time, is this a bottleneck? What we are arguing about is maybe when something is a bottleneck or I don't understand. It isn't possible to remove time completely from the processor or the video card

---

your correct thers always a bottleneck, but you dont want to have a cpu bottleneck. Gamers want the reach the gpu bottelneck to get the maximum out of there rig.

Also your graphs are kinda bad to show either cpu or gpu bottleneck, you cant only examine the cpu or the gpu, you have to watch both:

working: +
idle: -

GPU bottleneck:
GPU ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CPU --+--+---+----+-----+----+----+----++-----+++-

CPU bottleneck
GPU --+--+---+----+-----+----+----+----++-----+++-
CPU ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

both are extreme cases, but with nowadays graphics cards you reach the CPU limit far more often then the GPU limit, meaning that potential of your graphics card is unused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

both are extreme cases, but with nowadays graphics cards you reach the CPU limit far more often then the GPU limit, meaning that potential of your graphics card is unused.

---

if the game is bottlenecked by the processor. is that processor working at 100% then?

I didn't understand your "+-" thing.

There will always be some waiting for the cpu and the gpu. do you mean that too? of course if some hardware is slower and is used much than this will be the MAIN bottleneck. if you have a game that just draws one pixel but this pixel is very complicated to calculate. The the video card could render like 100 000 FPS or something like that. But if the cpu needs 0,1 second to calculate the pixels position it will be 10 FPS. Still, the video card is going to take 1/100 000 seconds for each frame. Total time is 1/10 + 1/100 000

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

if the game is bottlenecked by the processor. is that processor working at 100% then?

I didn't understand your "+-" thing.

---

You're not serious, he mimiced your attempt at doing the same thing....

This is really entertaining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

You're not serious, he mimiced your attempt at doing the same thing....

This is really entertaining.

---

Errr, or maybe he needs to see the code that generated the "+-" thing.

Maybe this link will jog his memory!! :rofl:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=413

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

You're not serious, he mimiced your attempt at doing the same thing....

This is really entertaining.

---

It is always nice to do someone glad.
Could you explain what he meant?
If I don't understand completely then I ask

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by highoctane

Errr, or maybe he needs to see the code that generated the "+-" thing.

Maybe this link will jog his memory!! :rofl:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=413

---

he is using these different. idle and working. If I understand that right then the processor would be used 100% and I am not sure that is what he meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

if the game is bottlenecked by the processor. is that processor working at 100% then?

I didn't understand your "+-" thing.

There will always be some waiting for the cpu and the gpu. do you mean that too? of course if some hardware is slower and is used much than this will be the MAIN bottleneck. if you have a game that just draws one pixel but this pixel is very complicated to calculate. The the video card could render like 100 000 FPS or something like that. But if the cpu needs 0,1 second to calculate the pixels position it will be 10 FPS. Still, the video card is going to take 1/100 000 seconds for each frame. Total time is 1/10 + 1/100 000

---

god... you have given the ansewer to your self... plus its the same what i wrote a few post befor you. If the graphics card can render with 100k fps and the cpu only with 10fps you only will see 10fps on your monitor, reagrdless of what resolution you use or what graphic settings....

damn this feels like talking with a rubber wall...