Thanks for deleting the most stupid ad hominem post. :)
I might try getting the GPU in question and check the 2k6 scores when I do with Phenom (if they tie in with macci's). Can do for Q6600 too but not Yorkfield. I doubt it.
Printable View
Thanks for deleting the most stupid ad hominem post. :)
I might try getting the GPU in question and check the 2k6 scores when I do with Phenom (if they tie in with macci's). Can do for Q6600 too but not Yorkfield. I doubt it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
Mayby time to delete all posts exept Maccis first post? Me and other have gotten this thread on the wrong foot so to say, I´ did not mean to start an new AMD Vs intel sand box dissusion. Again sorry macci! I hope you macci can maka e new thread or continue in this because I and others are very intrested in youre setup\results! Over and out!
he he that made me smile :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MexxT
i know this is 3d but i have just one question. is their is a bigger point difference with intel going from xp to vista then phenom?
@ knightwolf654, I compared with a friend of mine. He uses a Q6600 @ 3,285Ghz and windows XP Pro score: 5188 . I use a Q6600 @ 3,6GHz with Vista, and my score: 5211 :x
Huge differance!
Oh, and I ran 3Dmark again, with Vista, and Bios clock + compairable memory speed.
http://www.techzine.nl/f/g/35530phpU0A99m.jpg
Q6600 is A LOT faster..
My advantage is:
-8MHz more memspeed.
My Disadvantage is:
- 5MHz less corespeed
- Cl5-5-5-15 VS CL4-4-4-12
- Vista VS XP
So, it looks clear to me :)
haha nice! 10 more points in cpu test, eh but vista in use :/
Vista = Crap with benchmarks ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by KeZzZu
If you search ORB for the highest vista score (3DMARK06), it will show something arround 20K LOL!
[]'s
Simps
Now search XP ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Simps
Ok, I found a 512MB 2900XT.Quote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
so, how much over 20k? :D
20k seems to be quite easy with 860/990 setting already - didnt need to push NB / RAM at all. Actually this was the first run I did with this config so far.
first run at 20k
edit: OK, just to be fair - here is a better run with higher NB / MEM
http://img.techpowerup.org/071213/20429.png
more details:
Vista ultimate 32bit, Catalyst 7.11 driver
Wow,:D. Waiting Mr Hipro5.:D
Thanks Macci.
http://www.improvresourcecenter.com/...es/popcorn.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by linhvndiy
This looks like its going to turn into a fun thread!
Should be renamed
'3Ghz challenge of the titans, Macci V Hipro'
:D:D
Heh, heh, heh.......In a minute..... :D
......and the 2k6 one?..... :p:
Going to be really cool :).
Keep pushing it guys.
@macci Why don't you run the default benchmark(Game and CPU, without feature)?
It would be easier for us to compare the score with many others. Also, since the thread is about 3D Mark, it would be nice to run the rest of the 3D Marks.
You are evil. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
lol it seems like Hipro can't cutt it at same GPU, CPU en MEM clocks :D
that minute was two hours ago
Yes, looks like a minute is very long in Hellas ;)
LOL hipro
you just got owned by macci dude
killer result there man wow :D
i hear a mate is running a phenom 9900@3Ghz ..... he'll be testing the coldbugs soon :) should be interesting
Very nice Macci! You put a smile in my face ;)
macci it be freakin sweet if you could do a write up on how to overclock phenoms. :)
thanks for posting the phenom results, really interesting. seems AMD are on the right track at least... keep em coming....
Macci, has you already tested for signs of coldbug?
people usually run ONLY the Game tests for 3Dmark05. that is considered as default by many. the CPU Score in 05 doesnt affect your overall score and as mentioned is not a stable or realistic benchmark anyways.Quote:
@macci Why don't you run the default benchmark(Game and CPU, without feature)?
It would be easier for us to compare the score with many others. Also, since the thread is about 3D Mark, it would be nice to run the rest of the 3D Marks.
so the numbers you see in the screenshots are very easy to compare with others.
the reason I ran the feature test (mainly the fillrate) is to just show the theoretical GFX speed. Fill rate only depends on your GFX power (certain clock speeds can produce only certain amount of fillrate). it can be used as a verification of your GFX clocks (or GFX power in general).
Single fillrate = Memory bandwidth of the card (e.g. memory clocks and memory timings affect this one)
multi fillrate = GPU bandwidth (e.g. GPU clocks, this is a test that is only affected by the GPU clocks, so its easy to compare and verify that the other guy was running the same GPU clock)
(now if someone is paying a very close attention - comparing the 20k score vs the 20429 score you'll see that the fillrates are very different! I dont know what went wrong there!! :D , need to retest both settings again today, it seems that only the fillrate test is screwed since the Pixel shader test is the same, GT3 is different too but that could be because of higher PCIe clock and higher overall system performance in the 20429 score)
such pointless arguing. the thread shows me that summer '08 may be a fun time :D
massman, with the production parts: NO
with earlier parts: YES
it would boot up fine at -80C
I have a plan for the weekend ;)
OT/Quote:
Originally Posted by macci
ermm you mean CPU or gpu's? if cpu, retails suffer from coldbug?
and little task/question: would you write little quide to tweak/oc phenom to amd section. becose there aren't many phenomist's around :( so were doing slow in learning how to :D / OT
Very nice score Macci :clap:
You're kidding right? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by macci
With the right steppings, we should be able to use dice without having too much problems? If so, I want one :p:
If that's the case full LN2 control :)Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
macci,Quote:
Originally Posted by macci
http://plaza.fi/s/f/editor/images/qx...rk05_20448.png
QX9650
Asus P5E3 WS Professional (Intel X38)
ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT (860/999)
OCZ PC3-12800 Platinum @ 1712 MHz 7-6-6-18 1T
Catalyst 7.11
Windows XP SP2
;)
Lol Ddr3 ;) :d
Sampsa: DDR2 vs DDR3 and XP vs Vista :)
Actually a nowadays York at 2750MHz does this..... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNizze
http://www.hipro-tech.com/images/hip..._CPU_score.png
Quote:
Originally Posted by macci
Sorry for the delay but I totally FORGOT it coz I was benching the PCMark2005 today..... :D
http://www.hipro-tech.com/images/hip...83_5508MHz.png
Here you go...... :)
http://www.hipro-tech.com/images/hip...860_1000_1.png
http://www.hipro-tech.com/images/hip...860_1000_2.png
....and 2k6.....where's YOUR 2k6?.....I can't see it anywhere?..... :D :p:
http://www.hipro-tech.com/images/hip...860_1000_1.png
http://www.hipro-tech.com/images/hip...860_1000_2.png
@ Massman please DON'T compare systems each other by saying DDR2/DDR3 or so.....IF AMD rig whould have DDR3, the guys whould bench with DDR3.....Does it have?.... :D
Everyone benchies with what he has.... :) ;)
whatQuote:
Originally Posted by macci
no way
amd CPUs that can boot up at -80C......i gotta see that
Hipro, you are not comparing fair :)
i'm afraid you can't stand it that Phenom is better lol ;)
these guys are right George
Apples for apples ;)
btw that PCMARK SCORE IS EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK
:confused: What do you mean?......macci with AMD "gave what he got" and I with Intel "gave what I got"....Where is the problem with that?.... :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
I MUST DOWNCLOCK my rams or use DDR2?.....What for?.....THIS is the new technology now......Do you want to go back and get a Pentium4 to bench instead?.... :D
I agree. This thread is showcasing AMD's latest and greatest. So to keep it fair it should be compared to last year's technology?Quote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
I've emptied this as it is innapropriate and not needed, carry on benching. ;)
^ Oh dear.
George,
don't downclock anything or switch to DDR2 - thanks for the ref. score! now I have a new target again (which is not too far either) :D
I think my GT3 is too low for the clocks (I remember it stutters in the beginning of GT3). Let me try WinXP. I think I can get it to over 20.5k too.
in any case its still a VERY close match.
I'll work on that 06 number during the weekend.
speaking of latest technology: I think you should try with Vista ;) (for both 05 / 06)
Owned! Lol
this is a very close match.. but Macci runs very high NB clocks, nobody here on the forum has managed so high clock on either cpu og NB?
anyways, George CAN run the setup at 4.7Ghz on air, while macci is stuck at 3Ghz on air.. enough said at xs.org? :D
Definitely. I've seen as much as 600 points difference in 06 between Vista and XP at 3600MHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by macci
Owned! ;)
very nice... I'm reading. :D
Quit trying to distract us with that PCMark score... George. :p: :eek:
People run NB at 2.25GHz for sub 2.9GHz. I run NB 2.16GHz at 2.64GHz CPU. Less than 300MHz difference and he's at higher clocks. But look at the FSB George ran for 3GHz. Is that stock QX9650? Stock is 333MHz and he is running 428.7MHz. 379MHz difference. But Sami is 22MHz above stock on HT. ref (200MHz) while George is about 95MHz above.Quote:
Originally Posted by dpa
And RAM is not fair at all. DDR3 is better than DDR2 for bench -> all benchers incl. Geroge himself say this and that's why they use it. We've all seen your posts. :D
Again that 2750Mhz George compared to Badnizze had 458MHz FSB. That's insane FSB for quads. Try ~333MHz and you have a proper comparison.
The point is that you have the possibility to compare fair yet you prefer to do it otherwise. You wanne know who is faster clock per clock in this bench yet you use a factor that influence GT1 and GT3 for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
You're right if one would compare what cpu is better for extreme benching purpose ... but then, you would choose Intel just because you can clock it at 5,8G using ln² ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
To find out what cpu is better clock per clock, you need to use the same hardware/software :) .
massman, CPU can't do much alone since it needs a chipset and memory to work so the performance is a sum of these three components. Right now the best these two companies can offer:
AMD = Phenom (K10 architecture) + AMD 790 FX + DDR2
Intel = Yorkfield (Penryn) + Intel X38 + DDR3
You may be right, Sampsa, though I'd rather see results with both systems running on DDR2 to compare both chips just as I'd rather see XP vs XP instead of Vista vs XP comparisons :)
Indeed, is it me or does HIPRO, Sampsa know what the result is when using DDR2 at the same speeds...:D ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
I can bench 05 tonight with following setup:
Yorkfield 333x9 + X38 + DDR2 + 2900Pro 860/980
Operating system is Vista 32-bit.
Let's see what the score will be...
I would be interested in seeing yorkfield vs phenom folding SMP for a half hour each both at stock settings but then again this would be the wrong section.
cant blame a guy for asking :D
Really interresting thread, i'm really happy for the good results from the phenom, 2005 is so cpu dependant. 3DM2005 is a lot more cpu dependant than new games as Crysis with quality setting settings just under 60Fps.
It would be interresting to see some numbers under XP too, particulary 3DM2001 :)
Just any question : Phenom should have 6Mo L3 and 4X1Mo L2 in 2008 ?
Thanks for the numbers macci, i hope a lot since you reappeared :clap:
Edit : Ok Vista Roxx :D
You filthy pron macci...... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by macci
You didn't tell me that 2k5 on Windows VISTA shines!.....AHA!.....THAT'S why you have benched it on VISTA right?...... :D :p:
I ALSO have stutters in the beginning of GT3 with XP OR VISTA....You should fix the drivers a bit I think..... :D
With my previus setting on rams, I got 20694 and with more tight settings, I got the below...... ;)
ALSO my VGA rams are LOWER than yours.... :p:
Take a look at the Performance Level you INTEL guys..... ;)
http://www.hipro-tech.com/images/hip..._860_990_1.png
http://www.hipro-tech.com/images/hip..._860_990_2.png
http://www.hipro-tech.com/images/hip..._860_990_3.png
Memory Bandwidth influence a LOT GT1 and a bit GT2.....Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
Now tell me this..... Isn't Phenom supposed to have INTERNAL MEMORY CONTROLLER that wipes out EVERY Intel rig?......Yes or No?..... ;)
This is GT1 of the 2k5....
Now do you want to compare ALL 3Ds to see how Phenon is NOT doing that well at all?..... ;)
SOFTWARE used the SAME now......Windows Vista and it seems that it performs BETTER as for 2k5..... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
SO we will NOW "avoid" the "SOFTWARE influence" since BOTH benchies where done on VISTA and we keep on, right?.... :)
Hardware: Look my above answer to BeardyMan.... :)
We are testing at the EXACT SAME FREQUENCY/bench/software and EACH system is MAXED out with whatever methods the manufacturer provide us.... :)
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by dpa
"Insane fsb for QUADS" is the 500MHz+ M8....This 428 is peanuts.... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
.
hipro you cheater.. no wonder your scores are higher because your GPU clock is 863 MHz instead of 860 MHz ;)
....and?..... what frequency is that?... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sampsa
Plus Riva Tuner can't take it at 860 sharp....it puts it on 863.... :)
good job hipro
what's the vMCH on the board for that PL?
Ok i will do it myself next week on my QX9650, and teamgroup DDR2.
Omg a stupid run on DDR2 seems to be mission impossible :rolleyes:
I used 1.95VMCH dinos.... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Also - a secret - Strap 200:D
I don't own a DDR2 mobo any more M8......What can I do?.....Bench with ABIT AW9D MAX and X6800?..... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
I'll borrow an ASUS Blitz Formula for you.... ;)
I don't care who wins this is fun to watch. I think Macci can tweak a fair bit more yet but i get the feeling Hipro has more in hand hardware wise.
It's nice to see Macci back benching again :toast: Looking forward to results with LN2.
Regards
Andy
that explains low PL value besides monsterous voltages on MCHQuote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
what cooling do you have on MCH
looks like i'll have to crack open my nautilus 500 with chipset cooler block from corsair to really push the damn RAM and straps
buying one of OPBs boards :p for super fast CDT ownage hahahah j/k
really need a decent board for RAM clocking and ddr3 GB isn't cutting it atm
bios needs a lot of work on them :(
yep - P5k does 480 FSB with quad at 1.4v vMCH & 1.7v PLL ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
I have a cooper Enzotech heatsink with a DELTA 4x4cm 10000rpms on it..... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
You sick bastard :D. PL=4 is just TOO fast :DQuote:
Originally Posted by hipro5
Anyway, I take your point, going as fast as you can with the hardware that the manuf supports does seem to make more sense :)
Now, I'm hoping that Macci is going to pass this again, just to keep this battle going. You know ... I have a flashback to 2003 :rofl:
:D :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
Hipro: 4,5k @ 2750 is FAST, Don´t think i can match that...ever, But I will try ;) My DFi board, does not suffer from the Low NB clock bug. As my older Gigabyte did\does.
Regarding the FSB thing, K8 does not scale with HTT\FSB I have not done testing with K10, but i think it´s safe to say that running high HTT does not give much in terms of preformance on K10 either. But it would be nice to see what a york does @ 3Ghz with 333FSb for reference. Could someone run 2,4ghz on a York to? Would be nice to see how it scales with Mhz aswell! No one have tested york @ low mhz, right?
I'm keeping track of as many 45nm 1M results as possible. This is 1M vs MHz, not useful here, but I have one result with very low clock freq, which shows that it scales pretty good.Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNizze
Macci will beat it :)
Here is totally stock result with yorkfield. Over 20K, but not much. (This is my 24/7 machine, so there is a lot of crap in background)
QX9650 9x333
Maximus Formula
2900Pro 863/999
2GB ram/ DDR2 1005 / 4-4-4-6
"strap" 266 (-->200 wasn't stable because NB was too hot.)
Performance level= 4
Vista 32-bit.
Catalyst 7.10 /7.11 doesn't work for some reason.
Attachment 68721
@ SF3D
Nice!
Can you show us some 3DMARK06 with those stock settings?
[]'s
Simps
nice one guys, come on Hipro play nice :D
good to see Macci benching ti is fun to watch
good to see ipc is close
as i thought so, the reason why hipro doesnt show DDR2 cause he knows that phenom with DDR beats teh crap out of yorkfield with DDR2 and for sure when macci is roling the dices , thx for the info man ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by SF3D
why do you really need ddr2 for...?? ddr3 is the new thing now, just let DDR2 go, okey?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
Really impressive there George.
Keep pushing it.
DDR2 is still what 99% will buy today.Quote:
Originally Posted by dpa
Ok so to satisfy the majority, then they should also be benching on integrated graphics and with low-end dual core chips :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by LowRun
Cut it down man. Your remarks are pathetic.:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
id like to see it run with ddr2 since cheapest ddr3 is $200 :o
then again if u have the $1149 to dish out for a 9650 $200 must be chunk change.
You MUST be blind or something..... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
I wroted to you above that I DON'T HAVE a DDR2 mobo right now to test..... :D
I'll borrow one maybe today or tomorrow...... ;)
@ Hipro5 & Macci, Nice showdown for us poor guys!!!
Honestly, its good to see AMD performing in the same range as Intel in 3DM05 atleast :P
Good, now go extreme to see the results ;)
^^ I think AMD chip is @ extreme [wid air] only... :rofl:
With good DDR2 sticks, you're close to the performance of average DDR3 AND DDR2 is supercheap ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by dpa
If FSB gave him no perf increase, he wouldn't have increased it by that much but ran it stock, no? Does it hike power consumption and need higher volts for no reason? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNizze
As for K10h HT means nothing -> it makes a good difference if you're below 1800MHz anyway. All things constant (stock) Phenom 9500 2600XT 2k6:
HT 200MHz: 4438
HT 1000MHz: 4742
HT 1800MHz: 4783
Forgive the card. :lol:
KTE, why doesn't the cpu score go up?
It's good to see a max overclock Phenom going up against a stock clockspeed Yorkie in a bench cherrypicked to favor Phenom and still lose? :confused: Phenom will be "in the same range as Intel" when it has stock clocks over 3GHz and over, overclocks to 4.5GHz on air, performs across a range of benchmarks not a single cherrypicked one, and doesn't come with a performance destroying bugfix.Quote:
Originally Posted by harshal
Until then the only comparisons between Phenom and Yorkfield will be like this thread, a kind of carnival show where a pro fighter is taking on drunken challengers from the crowd with one hand tied behind his back.
^^ No my my point is clock to clock... and yes all of us know AMD should have aimed a lil higher then they did.
Also, I completly agree that with same percentage of overclock on Yorky will leave Phenom miles behind. :)
Keep up the good work guys this is awesome! :clap: :-|
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
I think I´m missing something in youre post, because of the language barrier. Anyway, my point is that running HTT over stock on an AMD rigg does close to nothing for preformace, Right? I was actualy defending hipro by saying that high HTT does close to nothing for preformace with AMD cpu´s. No the other way around. I think that hipro´s score is 100% fair BTW. Towards me or anyone else that for that matter. I´m doing the best i can @ 2750mhz and so is hipro, if hi runs 200 or 333 or 500 fsb is fine by me! But i would be nice to see what a york pulls in 06 CPU tests... @ 2420mhz, 2750mhz and 3000mhz
ipc isn't close.Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoled
It's what 3DMark 05 does. It's the way it's coded. It really doesn't showcase the IPC of these processors. If you want that you'll have to run 3D Games or compare 3DMark 06 CPU scores.
Heck, using Cinebench or SuperPi would be better for IPC comparing. Mike over at Xtreme CPU has been doing so and the results are less then favorable for the Phenom CPU. It's a horrible processor right now. In time it might mature into something competitive, but as it stands it's junk.
http://www.erenumerique.fr/images/21...rk2005_cpu.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v5...s/3dmark05.jpg
The 3DM05 cpu test is :banana::banana::banana::banana:. Rerun the test and your score will continuesly go up without changing the clocks.
higher ht is good for high res 3d benchs, no?
No idea but HT increases bandwidth between GPU>CPU so GPU gains if bottlenecked.Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
I understood you fine the first time. I don't think it's a true generalization TBH. I know 1800 from 1000 gets you good gains and people said the same thing when HT was at 1000. Have you tested 2600MHz HT vs 1800MHz HT across all apps? Try it. I would if I could but mine is hevaing like a dud. I don't see why AMD would increase HT from X2 to K10h to Shanghai if it did nothing on perf in any app. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNizze
because the HT Link has nothing to do with the CPU performance 'cause the Memoryinterface is in the CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by massman
The HT Link ist just tu communicate with the rest (ie graphics card and other I/O things), therefore the HT Link can have an impact on graphics performance especially if you use a HT3.0 chipset and a graphics card with small amount of memory (like the 8800GT/256MiB or the HD3850 with 256MiB).
superpi to compare cpus? imo its mostly a cache benchmark now, not really a cpu bench.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElMoIsEviL
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElMoIsEviL
Are you sure that aint the rebadged Intel Score Charts from Toms Hardware 1 1/2 ago:D Besides man what is so god awful about those scores? It just needs some time to mature just Like Intel did with the Prescots.