Can you read Chinese?Quote:
Originally Posted by nemrod
Printable View
Can you read Chinese?Quote:
Originally Posted by nemrod
No but it is in english in the screenshoot :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by User9498
it's enough to understand..:)
People can expect phenoms to be sold @ December, there won't be many phenoms shipped in november, and the shippings will fully start in late december.
Semi-paper launch!
Just my guess.
I think it is some kind of bug (made on purpose or not) in Crysis benchmark.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemrod
I did a quick test on my setup and at 1680x1050 my lowest fps was 16.xx then I used default bench resolution which is 1024x768 and, guess what, 6.xx fps!!
This speak for itself... :shakes:
E6850, QX6850, QX9850 and Phenom X4 all on 3GHz
http://www.benchmark.co.yu/forum/new...11/3/score.png
considering that it is cheaper and the difference is about 6-10% on 3GHz that's not so bad..
source: Inq.
These test are actually irrlevant, the game is optimized for Core2D en nvidia.Quote:
Originally Posted by mad_skills
Phenom X4 GP-7000 (tricore)
Nvidia 8600GTS stock
2GB DDR2
3dMark2006 - 6175
http://www.expreview.com/news/hard/2...8206d6758.html
Intel Q6600
Nvidia 8600GTS stock
2GB DDR2
3DMark2006 - 6638
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2717398
Phenom is 7.5% slower while having 20% less clock.
Crysis benchmark would also be more in line with the 3Dmark2006 result, if it wasn't the weird Min. Fps.
Not when half the world is gonna be playing that game :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
3dMark2006 - 6175 at 2.0Ghz = 3.08 points per MhzQuote:
Originally Posted by DoubleZero
3DMark2006 - 6638 at 2.4ghz = 2.76 points per mhz
Phenom is more effective it seems, note also that it's a Tricore vs a quad core ;)
exactly my point :DQuote:
Originally Posted by gundersausage
it just seems the Phenom is very good in effective work despite the lower clock frequencies even @ tri core tasking..
and is priced lower than the Intel quad cores..i think it's going to be a good buy..
Seems kind of inane to compare a system-level benchmark and try to make CPU comparisons from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
Why not use the CPU sub-score? Seems that would be a LOT more relevant.
(too bad they didn't include that in the Phenom results).
phenom takes 8s in SPi 1M with 400MHz clock increase, i think that's way better than quad core intels..
Lets say that Pheniom @ 3GHz runs SPI1M in 30s. @ 4.2 GHz the time would be 6s? What would it be @ 4.6 GHz? Yes, a negative value.Quote:
Originally Posted by mad_skills
See, you can not say it in the way you said it.
Also note that C2D CPU's are ran @ 333 MHz FSB, while Phenom runs at 200 MHz HTT, and probably RAM aswell.
What if they put C2D to 200 MHz FSB, and RAM aswell? Would that mean that C2D is SLOWER than Phenom?
While the Phenom really runs at default 200 MHz HTT and Intels at default 333 MHz FSB, setting all to 3 GHz is just stupid, if other factors aren't the same. (FSB/HTT, RAM speed etc.)
What if I compared 2 GHz C2D against 2 GHz Athlon XP, and then underclocked the C2D RAM, and overclocked the Athlon RAM, posted that to Intel section and said that even Athlon XP beats C2D? ;) I would probably get banned from XSF. :P
Though, I am not sure how the memories are set to in both rigs, so can't really judge anything from that. :P
Is it B2 stepping? :o
But that demo isn't the game. You will have to pay for the *optimized* final shipping version. There is a huge distinction here.Quote:
Originally Posted by gundersausage
I wonder what would have happened if the Intel CPUs had been overclocked as well. Annihilation!!!!
obviously i didn't mean that literally..SPi 1M doesn't funcion that way..Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
i was refering to that phenom gradually makes up seconds in SPi although it's inital frequency is not that good as C2Q and is different in the manner it was constructed..
of course that when you get passed 13,14s it doesn't go down that easily..
for what it offers i think Phenom will turn out a good buy..and not so far behind Intel..
Lol man,they just equaled the frequency of all CPUs in question just to see how they perform at 3Ghz.You know,the "same clock" criteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Do you even know what are you posting about?:rolleyes:
And yes,that Phenom was the same one with which they got those very strange mem. subsystem numbers(practically extremely low mem. bandwidth,lower than on K8s)
Setting all the CPU's to the same 3.0Ghz and the same memory speed... all 200 or all 333, would be the correct comparison.... assuming you want to comapre the CPU's computing power, and not something else in the system.
From there, run Crysis, 3Dmark, SPi, whatever you like, but do it at the same clock and mem speeds and timings, vcard, etc. This isolates the result to how well the CPU is getting the job done.
That Crysis table says alot. The Phenom was ahead a smidge and the memory bus was not pushed at all. Im sure it could have done 12x250 for the 3.0Ghz as well, or even 300x10. The gap would have widened between the Phenom and the Intels. Unfortunately the motherboards aren't on par.
The Phenom needs to be in a updated dual power plane version of the Crosshair, with complete control of memory and voltages.
AMD has a long way to go to catch NV's motherboard chipsets.
Having a 790FX board alongside NV 590s (inculding a crosshair) I disagree somewhat ;)
@ Beardyman and all you AMD cohorts, assuming all your calculations are to be correct about tricore vs quadcore, etc? Then what do you say about the E8650 in the original bench with ONLY TWO CORES kicking phenom quads a** all over the place?
Isn't it clear already that the crysis bench is only using two cores?
@ Beardyman; I've seen your posts all over the forum and you appear to be quite knowledgeable, but don't you think you're being a little disingenious here by your disregard for what seems obvious? This is beyond fanboyism. Just stick to the truth.
While it makes some sense that CPUs be compared at the same core clock, the tests are themselves bogus; why? The AMD CPU has to be on Red Bull (oc) in order to be able to compete. It's like having to run 75m in a 100m race. If I put my system against an AMD system, you bet I will be hitting it with all I got; makes sense? OKay, simple English: The two CPUs are not based on any common standard architectural design, in fact, this is the exact reason why AMD is AMD, and Intel is Intel. Both companies adopted processes and architectures which they felt would give them the best yields and performance. So where is all these going?
Here's a better method for testing we can borrow from the VGPU world:
Test all processors at stock
Test all processors overclocked by 10%
Test all processors overclocked by 25%
Test all processors overclocked by 50%
Push all processors to their limit and bench the heck out of them!
This is how we can determine the pretenders from the players. Overclocking headroom is, and has always been a huge factor in the overclocking world and among enthusiasts, etc.
This is what I want to see. Cheers!
That test needs an Ultra. It is GPU limited; as is obvious from the previous test. Any half wit should know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
an Ultra or any 8800 for that matter..even with a GTS it would be possible to see which cpu gives more boost..
Mr. Zucker2K:
Your comments will carry much more weight if you leave out the "Fanboy" and Half-Wit" comments..
It will also help me not to have to reply to reported posts.
Many Thanks for reading!:up:
Very True. But I prefer an Ultra just to eliminate any possibility of GPU bottle-necking.Quote:
Originally Posted by mad_skills
Thanks for the heads up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
if you bear in mind how brutal Ultra is i would rather worry if the CPU would be a bottleneck...:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
just kidding, i agree..
It's not a tricore. If you go back to the source:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
http://www.force.game.tw/
http://myevilprocessor.blogspot.com/...4-x2-6400.html
You will see that there is a name correction.
(Tests could be wrong, but they said it is a quadcore)