Printable View
This certainly looks promising, but I'm still a bit skeptical. With the e0 revision dual cores coming out that will do 4.5+ghz easy on air and perform much faster clock vs clock compared to AMD...it will take something interesting to bring me back to AMD.
this isn't intel's 45nm process... though yes, 1.475v is alot, i don't really expect these chips to drop dead or anything. i think intel's problem is that they changed to hafnium, which has different properties and thus has low tolerance to voltage increase. amd is still using the same formula it used for 65nm. unless, the size itself is whats causing these chips to die. in either case, even a 3.8ghz deneb will be an upgrade over my q6600, and amd systems are much more fun to tweak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extelleron
Just something... someone else (not me) noticed about that picture.
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/e...m/zoomedin.jpg
Isn't this area too... clean of artifacts? Usually, it'd be artifacted to death, no? I mean... before the number 4000 and the 2200. It seems a tad too clean. Like... something was cut and pasted in. Look around that area, and you'll see that numbers get a lot of artifacts around them. How come that area is so clean?
Actually if you zoom in and look at the numbers in the other sections such as the cache section to the right where it has 4x64 several times and 4x512 once... both areas of the picture have the same properties in the area you are attempting to point out. And if you look closely the numbers in both sections they actually have artifacting that is VERY similar... including colours. (YOu can also look at the "Model" and "Ext. MODEL" sections ABOVE where you are looking. They have the number "4" also so you can compare.)Quote:
Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner
So... either this is fake and somebody updated the numbers in ALL the sections to make it appear valid. OR it's real.
yeah but there are artifacts just like the other side.. some are covered by the red box.. i marked some visible artifacts in that area with blue (now you cannot see ONE thing in that picture but :lol:) compare with above to see what i mean..
:lol: keithlm was early bird..
http://www.abload.de/img/unbenannt-1sos.jpg
Take the original picture and view that area all by yourself and you'll see what I mean. The pixels suddenly got cleaned in a very straight line starting from the number 4 to the number 2.
Nope.
Look here:
This is zoomed in and had the contrast changed to REALLY highlight the artifacts. You can compare before the numbers in each section. About the same.
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/6034/nofakeya4.png
Well, I guess that's still not obvious enough? Here you go.
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/e...tpham/fake.png
And here's how one with natural JPEG compression (using MS Paint) should look like:
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/e.../fakeproof.png
So... why is it that the artifacts were cut off in such a straight line? Usually, it'd artifact a bit more at the spot I highlighted.
Or okay, assuming he did not save the screenshot using MS Paint (not a clean install of Vista? Or maybe something else was more useful. I have no idea), then I'd like to take a look at that software and see how I can generate a picture with such a clean cut in artifacts, because honestly, I can't do it even with Photoshop.
Thanks, dreams dashed. There goes all hope! lol
You are right, unfortunatelly. It looks very very suspicious. 99% it is fake.
I did similar cpu-z screenshot and saved it with different compression rates. And always compression artifacts sided frequency numbers equally (except 100% of course).
There is still 1% of hope that it was not "fart into the water" by some "miraculous superclocker".
i thought they only used csi for murders:rofl:
you know i find it funny that u guys are trying to disprove this....Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
ok now that you think you disproved the cpu-z screen how about AOD?:cool:
this from a random cpu-z
i take it this is wrong as well???
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b3...54/provein.jpg
taken from here....
http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?id=20790&catid=2
every single one i have looked at so far has the same pattern. its not a fake. if you believe otherwise please prove it.
This screenshot does not have enough detail to determine whether it was a fake or not.
(I meant the 4.0Gzh one... not the one in the post just above this one.)
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/e...m/disprove.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by knightwolf654
Well, if you so wish. That one also has the artifacts overlapping the numbers a bit on the left. The 4GHz one clearly has a cut that is extremely close to the numbers for some reason. I'd even go as far as saying that the pattern was recognize to be the same right at the numbers, so that section was either pasted in, or... something else took that space.
As for AOD, the texts and numbers are not anti-aliased (which means you only have to use paint to modify it). :( If this was legit, the poster could have just done a verification and then post it along. Simple as that. Why bother showing a screenshot? And if it's a screenshot, I can create a 9GHz Intel quad-core running at 1.08v, too.
Like keithlm said, there's not enough to show that this is true or fake. But I'm leaning towards fake due to:
1) The poster was a person who just registered on overclockers.net to post specifically one screenshot without any verification.
2) The weird artifacts up there. Would not have been suspicious if it didn't make a clean cut right at the numbers. It should expand a bit before the numbers (a bit to the left) at least. We've had two CPU-Z screenshots showing that now.
3) Weirdest thing since UFO: WoW on a Phenom test system? :eek:
4) What kind of "stock cooler" can sustain 53C maximum load... for a quad-core processor running at 4GHz... on almost 1.5v vCore? :eek:
But if you notice it too has a clean line.. streight that is on the left side. the right side is more bushy.... LOOOK closley :yepp:
I didn't mean the straight line. I meant that the line was too close to the number. As if the artifacts in that area were deliberately erased. If you'd look closely, there's always a line, because that's how it's supposed to be (alignment thing), but... key point was that it was too close to the numbers on the 4GHz screenshot.
Crap it went small LOL.. I'll see why...
Now it is Big LOL
well here is a screeny of one of mine with the new CPU-Z. It has the artifacta cut right next to the numbers as well. It is a placement thing. The close the numbers are to the text cut off point the less artifacts you will see.
http://3800z24.info/Phenom/test.JPG
Just a few points:Quote:
Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner
1. If it was a LEAK then it would be an anonymous post. That would actually SUPPORTS that it might be real if there is an NDA. But it could also indicate false. So NO JOY.
2. The numbers in the CACHE column for the "Level 2" row also cut off at about exactly the same place on the "4". Since that column has the biggest number the "4" in that column is LEFT of all other numbers. In the column we are looknig at the first number isn't really bigger or smaller than the other columns except for the one on the bottom. The "2" is cuttoff at the same place... it could go either way. So NO JOY.
3. When you load the ATI 8.7 Catalyst it now loads a WoW "Trial" icon. (I personally hate that.) So NO JOY. Unless you like WoW.
4. I don't think these chips get as hot as people have been claiming. But I wouldn't depend on a stock cooler.
MY OPINION: With the new sb750 getting 3.5Ghz@1.475V on the 9950 at ANAND's site... I was expecting to see 3.8Ghz to 4.0Ghz. Maybe even on 65nm chips. Definitely on 45nm. So I am inclined to believe this screenshot.
The same thing happend, with an early certificated ss from a 5000+ BB at a high freg..THis is sad.AMD can reach 4, as the facts leads as there (read keithlm's opinion and look new steppings of 9850, which can do 3.5 with ~1.4).I do not understand, why a lot of ppl minds are stuck, that amd has a wall at 3.5 with stock air-water-etc or it's not permitted or can't pass this "wall".
Thats Fricking funny man!! I've had my blacklight up to the monitor for the last 10 minutes.... And I'm still not sure... :yepp: :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by msimax
At least I didn't see any semen samples!! (Schew....) ;)
I think the 4ghz screenshot is fake. The K8 and K10 are not designed to clock that high.
WOW!Quote:
Originally Posted by awdrifter
^^ You surely "know" what you are talking about...:rolleyes:Quote:
The K8 and K10 are not designed to clock that high.
I just want to add to:Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
2) It might also be cut out from an earlier screenshot. I'm giving this the benefit of the doubt, but it's already looking more suspicious as its specs are vastly different from the other ES chips. Maybe a retail one? But... so soon? And what stepping is it?
3) Yeah... true. I just updated and saw it. Now I know how you feel. That would mean that this was done very recently. Probably... right at the time it was posted. But that is IF it was legit.
4) Still not very sure about this one. Although I don't entirely distrust the possibility that with air-cooling, these temps can be achieved, I can't really say that it can be done with... a stock cooler? This is the major one that's bending my head 360 degress every second.
Don't get me wrong. Just spotting a few things. It could be fluke (on my part). I honestly hope for 4GHz reachable Phenom to come out. If it is easy to reach such clocks, I'm getting myself one.Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilCry
And yeah, people, I'm not claiming that I'm right, and I'd be HAPPY if someone would prove me wrong (with a CPU-Z validation). It just means a good system update for me.
NOTE: If you use the site the photo came from... you can find this post:Quote:
Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner
http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/35...ml#post4285185
That post seems to more "original" than the post on this forum... and NOTHING is said about it being stock cooling. Actually nothing is said at all about it... other than you have to look at AOD to see the real voltage and not the CPU-Z. (WHEN I SAY more original... the screenshot was posted on THAT forum before it was posted here... and is hosted there.)
SPECULATION ALERT: AOD in the screenshot looks like the currently available BETA version. NOT the SB750 version. So this might be WITHOUT the SB750. We can hope. Then we can hope that the SB750 does some magic for the 45nm also. That would mean... OH WOW... I don't even want to think about that.... 4.4Ghz? At 1.475V? OOOOOOOOHHHHHH. Oh did I say that in my "out loud" voice? (I'll take 3.5Ghz and be happy with it.)
Im shure well see 4ghz ...
as for the CSI work Nice,,, Next time lets hire DEXTER hell CSi it and take out the garbage:rofl:
Why not 4GHz possible? Its ES, 45nm (1.475V is lower than 1.475V for Intels 53° is maybe possible)
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/7038/upravawv4.jpg
my real picture from CPU-Z, not editing in program
and there u have it the same straight line going down on each side. the 4ghz is not a fake.
hopefully, amd resolved phenom's issue with 64bit too.
http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/35...ml#post4285114Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
Um... yeah, apparently, I think you didn't look at the first page? There's a guy who registered only to post that one screenshot, and he claimed stock cooling. After that, it was a repost of that post (hence the repost does not have an attachment, although the link comes from the forums).
So... stock cooling, about 53C max load, at 1.47v, with all four cores running at 4GHz?
I'm still waiting for an explanation of this miracle.
P.S.: Post #9, in case you didn't recognize the thumbnail of the attachment.
1. Barcelona/Agena is over-engineered for 65nm, and Deneb fits 45nm like second skin. Partially true, as the new size is indeed more manageable, but without fab specs we cannot comment on performance.
2. Hand picked ES. I'm on this one, otherwise there wouldn't be a leak either way. But on the other hand, see Macci and 3Ghz Phenom ES fiasco. If they learnt they would keep the humility on board.
3. Fudzilla on 3Ghz Deneb. They say it's gonna launch this year, it has to be competitive with Nehalem pricing, hopefully under the 2.83Ghz one but above the 2.66 (which I deem a nearly perfect pricing if it CAN OC to 4G.) If such a chip is possible at "125"W, 1.475 volts for 4Ghz might not be a big stretch.
hmmm, something cut off on the left side ... so you are saying that in reality it is not a 4GHz machine, but instead a 14GHz, 24GHz or even more???Quote:
Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner
:eek: :eek: :eek:
folks, buy AMD stock! buy it NAUGH!!!
:rofl:
i did, i spent half my 4000$ for my 07 roth IRA on amd and the other half on sony. havnt looked at in a few month, but im hoping that both go up by at least 20% by jan 09
doesnt look fake to me, all the blocks fit perfectly in the 8x8 raster this jpeg pictures uses.
Show me one K8 dual core that hit 4ghz that's not on Phase or LN2 cooling. K10 is based on the K8 and it's more complex (2 more cores, L3 cache), so no, it will NOT hit 4ghz on air like that screenshot is claiming.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Sure, show me a 45nm K8 so we can compare and contrast.Quote:
Originally Posted by awdrifter
I'm still waiting. :D
soo now that we have disproved the disproves, any actual set date for release?
either going for a q9450 or one of these puppys, id prefer to stay amd though. I LOVES EM :)
This is getting out of hand. Lets all just suck it up and WAIT for Deneb. It will prove what it can or cannot do then. Same with Nehalem.
Dude,we are talking about a 45nm K10 core here,you really should check the title of the thread you post.And FYI,we have already seen sites like Anandtech getting 3.5Ghz stable out of 65nm K10(9950) on SB750 board.And yes,according to mathematics,4Ghz is 14% faster than 3.5Ghz,fourteen percent.And no,it wasn't done on LN2 or phase but on much less exotic cooling(high end air and water).Quote:
Originally Posted by awdrifter
K10 based on K8!?:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by awdrifter
WTF dude, Nehalem is based on Celeron then?
Besides that, sub zero cooling isnt a good way to get the best out of AMD. Only sometimes, but a very stable temp around 20C works a whole lot better.
Since 3.7Ghz has been reached before on Agena I see no good reason why 4Ghz is out of order for Deneb.
Typical, This is what always happens to poor AMD. Its fanboys set such high expectations that even when the do o.k it will look bad. Think how high you are actually setting the bar here, 4GHZ on stock cooling, I am not saying it is not possible but do not try to ram it down peoples necks as fact when you do not know for sure yourself. You are not doing AMD any favors by over hyping there products.
I don't see anyone here saying all Denebs are going to be able to do 4ghz on air based on one un-verified screenshot. Don't let that stop you from trying to take as many pot-shots at AMD as possible though. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Let me put it another way my friend, I want deneb to be a success, And I believe it will But as I am sure you will agree there are already far to many people making clams about 4ghz on air, IPC the same as nehalem etc and all this is going to do it raise expectations then it will make deneb seem less than it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
All I am saying is stop setting the bar so high, Hell if it does clock to 4ghz and smokes nehalem than it will be a nice surprise but saying it will as fact when chances are that it wont is not going to do AMD any favors.
Also you don't have to be so harsh with your replys, We are all just here to discuss a hobby, No need to hate on someone for having differing opinions.
Well, isn't it? :confused: K10 is just improved K8, just as K8 was improved K7. K10 isn't a totally new architecture. Bulldozer will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
The newest Celerons are based on Core architecture. Nehalem architecture is based on Core too with some big improvements (kind of similar to K7->K8: an IMC, killing off FSB). So, Nehalem is indirectly based on Celeron. :rofl: I know, it sounds a little bit stupid. :)
Architecture grandparents doesn't matter as much as current architecture implementation and process used.
K8 scaled a lot better than K7 for ex. back when everyone was saying AMD is doomed.
Well, you can continue like that, but it's still a bit off to say that if K10 is a more complex K8 it wont hit 4 Ghz wouldnt it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Karolis
@ gallag, maybe Im blind but I didnt hear anyone saying Deneb will be 4Ghz period?
People saying IPC will be the same as Nehalem (Bloomfield or Lynnfield though) is a bit off as well. If you pay serious value to people saying that you're a bit foolish.
Maybe I ignore terrible posts but what I am seeing is that Nehalem has higher IPC and will proably clock better. People aren't thinking Deneb is going to crush Nehalem, they are just hoping for less of a performance gap.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
To be consistent you need to be over in the Intel forums telling people to stop setting the bar so high for Nehalem.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
You might want to get onto that ASAP because there are a LOT of wildly speculating fans that will end up getting hurt when that chip comes out if it doesn't meet all of those claims. (And I wasn't talking about comparing to AMD. I'm talking about comparing to their own chips.)
Perhaps he has read some of your previous posts?Quote:
Also you don't have to be so harsh with your replys, We are all just here to discuss a hobby, No need to hate on someone for having differing opinions.
when AMD were ahead of intel during the very dark days of Prescott, I believe they charge premium prices for unlocked CPUs. And I strongly believe that they only have released the black edition on lower priced CPUs as a stop-gap measure til they're able to release a real Conroe2 competitor.Quote:
Originally Posted by hokiealumnus
I was thinking the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
JPEG compression works in blocks just like popular video compressions do. It isn't weird in the least that the artifacts line up roughly to a grid pattern. That grid can be tweaked by whatever program is doing the compression too, so don't expect all programs to save an image in the same way.
The only thing that does concern me is that the leading letter is small across all columns in AOD. You'll notice from other shots of AOD that the first column is all small lettering while the other three are all large. In the 4GHz screenshot, the 4 is small across all four columns while the rest of the lettering in those other columns is large as expected. It seems likely to me that the person who originated the image replaced a 2 or 3 on the first column with a 4 and then did the same transform to the other three columns, forgetting to increase the size because of the mismatch in font sizes.
Edit:
Nevermind. The 4 and 1 are smaller than some of the other characters. The 4 is indeed bigger in the other columns by 1 pixel and agrees with the voltage readouts, etc. It makes sense, as a 4 big enough to reach the top would look like a 9.
Psychlone:
Im jealous with the 3.5 on 1.375...So far I've only gotten 3.4 on 1.45volts and still testing on the 9850 JAAHB AA 0816GPMW
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/9690/aod34ui8.png
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/969...d16dee3e8f.jpg
CPU Z
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=397164
You know why the 4 is smaller right???? there is a top on the 2 and the 0's the 4 has no top. Looks the same on my alarm clock......Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
Edit. I read your post wrong I think... Oh well.....
Does anyone know the approximate timeframe for Deneb release?
Q408. Later than Neh, but in time for October I think.
Well done for Deneb @4GHz :up:
Fake or not, where's the simple bench like PI ? PI1M might touches 15s at least, right ? :)
I realy hope its true. AMD needs it and we need it.
If intel keeps on dominating they also keep the prices high and thats not good for us.
You might score higher or the same speeds with lower voltages if you have a board with SB750 (ACC)Quote:
Originally Posted by HondaGuy
Actually,if you look at the title of this thread you might see that it was SPied(means it ran SPI1M).
No offence ,but why on earth would you like to know the SPI1M result(apart from comparing it to Agena's score to see if any improvement is there)??SPi is a poor "benchmark",it has always been,it will always bee.It is even poor in calculating pi,slow as hell.You have much better programs that calculate Pi in fractions of the second ,compared to lame SuperPi.
But to answer you question,Deneb @3.48Ghz scored 19.696s and that's a new WR for any AMD chip.Agena must work at around 3.97Ghz to score the same result,so Deneb is faster from 12-14% in this test(depends on NorthBridge speed).A 4Ghz deneb will be around 15% faster that the 1st result in this thread,so around ~16.9s.
And according to SPi numbers,if we use them as a general performance metric(ludicrous),it would imply that Yorkfield is faster than both deneb/agena by as much as 40-50% in general computing power which is beyond ludicrous(45nm C2Q is around 15% faster than Agena,on average).
yeah but superpi is as easy to get as pieQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
almost everyone has it and everyone uses it... its going to be like this for a long time coming
sorry man, but i know good, superpi isnt great benchmark for today processors..Wprime is better for more core CPUs..Superpi is good only for same architecture (K8 vs K8 shrink etc, Core 65nm vs Core 45nm and his L2 cache ...)Quote:
Originally Posted by JCornell
Yeah, I know. Many said its might not stable enough to bench multithread from this early chip and high vcore. So PI1M will be enough to be part of reference, and easy enough to run on unstable overclocked(if so). ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
I would say that Agena is not 10-15% slower than C2Q. It might be closer to half of that, and the difference decreases the higher the frequency goes. That FSB is really killing them. At around 3.5GHz, many tasks seem to be about the same (aka, ~0% avg delta).
Particle, which C2Q would you be referring to? 45nm or 65?
Agena is around 6%-8% slower than Kentsfield C2Q,on average,per clock.This is all with the crappy reviews we have today(using synthetic crap tests which we saw how they benchmark CPUs- ie. PCmark05).
Yorkfield is around 5%-7% over Kentsfield(somewhere more somewhere less).
Interesting read on PCMark05--
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardw...o-review.ars/6
Those bastards at MadOnion!Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRicer
Well after reading the Nehalem review i'm really not that impressed with intel progress, they had to go back to the Pentium pro - P3 arch with core/2 and regardless of it's 32bit performance it's the arch is getting long in the tooth. Aside from being 45nm the nehalems only other real selling point is that it's an intel chip with what is essentially an AMD IMC. It's taken Intel near 6 years to get to the point of being able to COPY AMD's IMC, and despite how they may try and sell explinations such as
"we at intel don't really feel that there is any reason that conumers really need to have an IMC at this time, or the forseeable future, there is no significant performance gain to justify the additional difficulty in producing something that would be considerably more expensive for us to produce and thus make the product more expensive for the consumer. We were already working on a chip with an IMC back in 1998, were ready to launch it alongside the P4 but we realized there wasn't a market for it at the time and decided to focus our attention elsewhere. So the IMC is just another example of the "competition" following in our footsteps, not the other way around"
Which of course doesn't resemble the truth so much as "creative testimony." Intel omits the fact that they actually did launch chips with an IMC in '91 the 386SL and the 486SL which were 20mhz - 40mhz, despite AMD not even being on the radar at that point, the chip was such a PoS that vendors openly snubbed them and the chips were scrapped by '92. The chip they began working on in late '98, the Timna, the design was based around using Rambus RDRAM which never actually became affordable they had to scrap the design and rework it for use with SDRAM, pushing the launch back several times to final confirmed spring of 2001. But this was around the time that intel was getting ready to launch another industry milestone....netburst-ing P4. So it got pushed back again....along with the P4. Then of course when a test batch was rolled out...there was a pesky fatal design flaw. Which meant they would have to go and do more work, when really it wasn't worth putting so much effort into a cpu for a $500-$600 desktop, because thats not where the market was at, the consumers wanted to pay more money for their hardware, not less! So they scrapped it. So in reality they had already been a two time failure with IMC in the 12 year span prior to AMD 64's launch.
Then of course Intel also downplays 64bit applications and OS. Again, similar explinations to their reasoning for not having an IMC are given for not pushing 64bit Apps, or 64bit performance. Intel claims 64bit is just a marketing gimmick that in reality offers no real benifit in real world scenario's at this time. Well again, doesn't much resemble the truth, while the Alpha team at DEC produced the first 64bit RISC cpu in 91 or 92, intel partnered up with HP to develop the original IA-64 itanium in 94, with plans to launch by the end of 98, claiming that it would dominate the server market offering performance several times faster than anything else even concieved. So convincing were they that Microsoft tailored a Server OS specifically for Itanium HP and Intel invested billions in the project. Alas, much like the Timna, and the P4 the Itanic didn't actually launch until 2001. The Itanium was 64bit RISC processor, so it either had to run as a 64bit chip, in which case any 32bit code had to be emulated resulting in performance no even on par with 32bit desktop intel chips, or it had to be run as a dedicated 32bit processor....which meant that not only did it still perform worse than thier destop segment, but it made the 7 year multi-billion dollar project...well pointless. So of course by the time it was launched it was stomped by the competition. Every application had to be written specifically for the IA-64 to actually run in 64bit mode, which was more complicated than anyone imagined, it was slow, it ran hot and sucked up alot of power. That investment brokered sales in the thousands, not tens of thousands....4 digit thousands.
But strangely enough, here they are producing 64bit chips using the x86-64 code they have to licsense from AMD (even though 64bit is just a marketing gimmick) that will now use IMC's almost identical to AMD's even though Intel paved the way.
Going back to the original 500mhz Socket A chip (which was essentially an Alpha 64 with higher clock and larger caches) aside from acctually being a RISC processor optimized for 32bit, hypertransport was already built into the chip, though they had no plans to release the specs to all of the Motherboard manufacturers that were in bed with Intel. Socket A was implimented both as a holding pattern and distraction to intel while they developed the Opteron, which was actually meant to launch in 2001/'02. They already had the option of using an IMC since the Alpha engineers were working at AMD at that point, though they opted to introduce DDR instead and save the IMC for opteron. Actually, the Alpha EV8 was the first processor to offer similtanious multi-threading and was ready to launch two years before Intel got the P4 out, though EV8 got scrapped after DEC was sold off.
It really doesn't matter how much money Intel has, or how much faster they can shoot out die shrinks, they've never had tangible long term plans (which is probably why when they get ahead they go into production overtime putting out the same chips either on a different socket, with a smaller die, larger Cache faster clocks and then start going through that list using combinations) they seem to either think that just because they have a roadmap the market will remain in synch until they've carried through their plans, or it doesn't matter what the reality is so long as hundreds of millions are thrown into agressive marketing to set the public straight.
For instance after reading the nehalem review by anadtech, which showcased the cutting edge 64bit quad core running 32bit Cinebench i decided to clock my 9850BE phenom to 2.7ghz and see what my results were in 64bit vista ultimate with 4gigs of 1066mhz DDR2.
64Bit 32bit
1cpu= 2874 2245 21.88% performance gain
xCpu= 10550 8230 21.99% performance gain
speedup= 3.67 3.67
openGL 4564 4568
Incidently, the 2.66ghz Nehalem got 3048 in single core, and 12,400 i think running all 4 cores. I realize it's based off of results running on a unsupported x58 board...but seeing as how cinebench actually takes advantage of IMC 5.7% lead on a single core and 15% running 4 cores really isn't too impressive for a 45nm chip with twice the on die Cache....while running 1366mhz DDR3. But my how nice it is to see they have already worked their way back up to netburst features and ressurected hyper-threading.
As for the 4ghz clock on the 45nm AMD, it's entirely plausable, even on air cooling. Someone recently managed to break 4ghz with one of the B3 phenoms using phase change i blieve, and my 939 4400x2 toledo core clocked from the stock 2.2 up to 3.66ghz 24/7 stable using a TT Big typhoon with a 120mm 110cfm silverstone fan in place of the stock 54cfm fan, running on 1.475V, which i ran for 2 years until 3.5 weeks ago when i upgraded to my Phenom the highest i managed to boot and get a scuicide screenie was just shy of 3.8ghz though the voltage was pumped up to 1.525 or something insanely high like that.
Now that Dirk meyer is in the CEO seat at AMD, i think things are going to be looking much brighter for them. But then again, AMD has always put placeholder products out while they work on the secret project to wipe the floor with Intel.
Wow. it would take me all day to write that lol.. nice to read any how. I do belive AMD has something going on in the back ground.. Plus they have beem very quiet as of late. but either way., I will still buy a Denab Phenom when they come out. It will plug right into my current setup. Nehelam will rquire a hole new board for any Intel users... so total cost wise.. I think I will stick with AMD this go around as well.
That's pretty revealing. I wonder what Futuremark has to say about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRicer
This just reinforces the fact that AMD should fire their ENTIRE Marketing department and start all over. Intel has done nothing but screw up time and time again but you would never know it unless you did some READING on your own. AMD messed up once and it nearly ended them. Marketing may be the most important aspect of a tech company's long-term survival.Quote:
Originally Posted by iocedmyself
Wow@Nehalem numbers. WTF happened to that 8-thread power? Maybe it's hyper-threading is as useless as the implementation on Atom, or was SMT turned off in that test? If Deneb comes at it with a solid 15% performance gain over the current K10 then things will get interesting.
This makes me wonder how many other software manufacturers optimize for certain CPUIDs. Is AMD getting screwed at the end of the day due to poor code? Probably...Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRicer
There were never really 8 threads. If Dunnington was native and NOT IO limited it would be a lot faster than Nehalem + SMT. Of course, the fans love to inflate scores to absurdity though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechromancer
v1: P4
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/...G/image002.gif
Let's see how v2 will fare. :yepp:
The issue is that they only tested this with PCMark05... If it was only a problem in PCMark05 it's still a huge and terrible mistake, but well. If PCMark Vantage/3DMark06/3DMark Vantage have this too, then I think something is really really wrong here though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechromancer
I really wish I could say so... but the difference between Q9450 at 3.6GHz and the same processor at 3.8GHz is not a tolerable one. Of course from 3.6GHz to 4.0GHz, it's an even higher gap. There IS a gap, though in stuffs that are already maxed out in terms of performance (simply because C2Q is just too fast), you won't feel a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
Plus Agena is up to 25% slower in some media encoding benchmarks. I think Anandtech has one that shows that.
Not to bash AMD... but... rubbing yourself to make it feel better by reducing numbers slowly and slowly is just a bit... weird.
So... what I am trying to say here is... there is no more excuses for Agena. It's a different story about Deneb, though, and I wouldn't even dare guess anything at this stage.
You can't say those are crap just because they show one processor over another. So what would be a better "benchmark?" Some game that never gets to use more than one core or never uses that much CPU power? If it's so, we might all well get dual-core processors.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Again... no excuses for Agena. It was just plagued with silly mistakes from AMD. Judging from earlier results from Deneb, I am led to believe that the late launch is due to more silly bugs... which I'm leaning towards the software team to blame. :( Maybe a BIOS issue. Maybe... something else they overlooked while beta-testing. Either way, I believe Deneb will be a hit IF AMD doesn't resort to some crappy software fixes... again.
I wouldn't pit Deneb against Nehalem. Maybe against Yorkfield, but not against Nehalem. That said, it's not that Nehalem is overpowered against Deneb, but rather... it's not even worthy of being put against Yorkfield, much less Deneb.Quote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
I gotta admit... Nehalem is a stupid move from Intel. Kind of like the GTX 200 series from nVidia.
Anandtech also showed the Phenom winning in HDTV play back, like 1920x1080.Quote:
Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner
I wish they stop comparing Nehalem to this 45nm phenom... it's 8 threads vs 4 is it not ?
totally pointless.
4 cores vs 4cores:) Anyway, Comparisons should always be done on price, I mean , It should not matter if it is 16cores 32 threads vs 1core as long as they are the same price then it is a good comparison. Its like x3 k10 being compared to 45nmcore2, One has an extra core but if they cost the same then it is fair game.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
Yes and no, although you're mostly right.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
I think however that people who base comments/purchases on said reviews should look from a neutral point of it. In the end Nehalem is a well designed architecture with proven features from the Core 2 line where as this is AMD's first 45nm;).
Where it often goes wrong is that people right away think 'Intel OC's further'. If said comparison shows AMD being equal or a little bit slower, they lose regardless when OC'ing is applied. As said, you're right although people seeing CPU x coming better out of a test than CPU y fastly call CPU y to suck.
But yes you're right, in the end we compare a R700 with the GT200 too although the R700 has two GPU's;). But does GT200 suck? No, but it's getting its butt kicked though.
[OFFTOPIC]Although it's funny as nVidia came with a too big ego on the market with its GT200 without knowing what AMD was up to.[/OFFTOPIC]
Another "Numbers" folk :DQuote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
Um,what is that and how is it related to 45nm Phenom in any way?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by JCornell
I think comparison by price is totally fair since we're all consumers. I buy based on the best deal, what can I say, my wallet dictates my choice. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
I want deneb to be comparable to yorkfield atleast in price and performance since I want to build an AMD rig, but ultimately the better deal gets my wallet's nod.
True, but I'd like to add the argument of who has the best total platform. That, of course, depends on in what environment the computer would be used. But since it's perfectly possible to build an AMD cpu, AMD chipset and AMD gpu platform, AMD tends to win in my view. Not that Intel doesn't have IGP's, but they rather suck compared to the AMD solution, both in performance/features as in power usage.Quote:
Originally Posted by insurgent
Yeah, I play games but that's not the primary purpose of my system so I'd be looking at the cpu performance first and go from there. I hope matching yorkfield's price/performance is not too big a hurdle for amd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devil's Prophet
If not in the CPU segment, then in the total platform segment. Just like they do now, but hopefully better. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by insurgent
AMD's RS780D, check these out:
RS780D 3DMark06 run
RS780D OC'd
RS780D OC'd results
This makes it quite a good platform;)
I've got a jet way board with sb700 & 3300 IGP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
AOD could push that 1,200 mhz. bois limts it to 1,023mhz
it's also got the 9550 in it.
AMD 45nm Phenom test
http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont...58&pageid=3149
Power consumption
http://img.inpai.com.cn/2008/8/6/2b7...287f1301dc.gif
^^ That's full load on four cores,1.8x less power draw than 9650 Phenom(65nm),same clocks,same board.Early C0 stepping.
One please.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Don't forget the X4 9350e 65nm, only 65W for 2GHz. Not very far from the results seen in that graph, but whatever, still a nice improvement.
I demand more leaked info....:yepp:
I demand surprise butt-sexness and AMD to release a bug gree fully optimized Deneb tomorrow:p:.Quote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
Meh, Ill really skip the 9950BE now. Ill settle down with my 9850BE. It will at least hit 3Ghz with my new motherboard and that's already a lot closer to the X2 6400+ I had before. Deneb will go in after:up:.
9950BE might do it better than my 9850BE, but is that little Mhz (OC'd) jump worth it to pay another 180 Euro's and have a very small chance to sell this 9850BE, and if it sells, get a way too low price? No, IMO it's not, at least not this close for Deneb.
yes but dont forget that 9350e has vcore under 1vQuote:
Originally Posted by Devil's Prophet
THAT I had forgotten. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterwind
Yeah, only 58W at 1,25V is very nice. Maybe if they up the clock a bit to see what impact that has on the total used power.
I don't think it's under 1v, I think it's like 1.15, or a little more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterwind
http://images.bit-tech.net/content_i...9350e/cnqw.png
looks like 0.976v:yepp:
dumb question.
if the the 45nm and 65nm were both at 2.3ghz, and lets say 1.25v...
whats the difference in watts they would run at?
i dont need exacts, just simple speculation
look few post upQuote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
:clap: Way to come out man, Respect:clap:
58W? 95-~47=48W. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Devil's Prophet