Printable View
Hmm from all those everest benchmarks only photoworks benefits from faster NB and mem speed. On my 9950BE I got 8% better results by increasing the NB speed from 2 to 2.4GHz with cpu at 3.2GHz, so expect round 4% going to 2.2GHz. Going from DDR2 800 to 1066 gave me 30% better results. So I expect ~35% better results for photoworks. CB10 also does not benefit from mem and nb speed. Unsure about povray and 7zip (winrar did not).Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I doubt faster memory will bring much for consumer apps, since beside from data compression programs thers virtually no need for high bandwidth. And since most of this test seem to be quite unaffected by bandwidth they give a good impression of what to expected from desktop apps (imho).Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
How much the higher NB/L3 speed is, i don't know but well see about that.
edit:
ops i missed justapost reply, he pretty much confirmed that faster NB/L3 speed only affects certain apps.
btw justapost could you run a quick test on games, faster L3 should help there a bit. (low res so that you dont run into a gpu limit, different NB speeds)
High memory bandwidth helps when the data can't be found from CPU caches. With high memory bandwidth and low latency the cost of cache miss reduces, depending on how much data has to be fetched and what kind of a miss it is. So, for smaller cached CPU's the mem bandwidth is more crucial than for high cached CPU's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
yes, thats the theory, but real desktop apps show otherwise, else there would be a noticeable differents on K8/K10 with faster mem. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Yes, in practice the e.g. 15 % highher bandwidth is usually useless unless the program really needs the bandwidth. With games there are marginal gains from going from 256 KB to 1024 KB L2 cache, or from 2 MB to 4 MB etc. No wonder the increased bandwidth and decreased latency has no practical impact when the data needed to fetch from RAM is usually just few bytes. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Oh, and even 10 % increase in GFX and CPU power can barely be seen in games, in practice. ...unless compared systems are next to each other.
But at least they are somewhat measurable and dont fall into the margine of error. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Yes. But then again, at least half of the gains are psychological rather than actual performance gains due to overclocking(or, in this case slightly improved CPU).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
At least I get the "Now it runs better" feeling after I can stretch the last few MHz out of the CPU and RAM, even when I know that the gains are barely measurable with software, let alone by human. Makes me happy with my effort on getting the last drips. :)
merkk1 posted a site in the AMD section that states:
The referenced data is obtained from an independent testing site. HERE is where the quote came from. :clap:Quote:
For HPC applications (Using SPECfp_rate2006), Shanghai at 2.7Ghz is faster than all current Intel processors (2-socket and 4-socket).
Does "All current Intel cpus" include nehalem? or will it when it hits 2 socket? Any spec results for nelly yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzman
Also, Dont forget that AMD also has a hefty lead in something far more important than spec, virtualization could be the future and is something it could still lead nelly in. Sorry for going ot but has anyone seen any nelly results for virtualization?
I have not seen Nehalem results for virtualization. Nehalem does have the benefit of providing the user the option of frying an omelet on the heatsink while running benchmarks. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
C't got 110 in SPECint_rate2006 base and 84.7 in SPECfp_rate2006 with a 965 EE. An optimized official submission will probably do better.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/118430
I'd hate to think what your Phenom would do to an egg.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzman
Sad, If this was shinti commenting on AMD like that you would be all over him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzman
great initial numbers iMO considering the abysmal recent past, I find it curious that HKMG is pushed back so far but it is likely for good reason. also an interesting happening the IBM AMD coalition is looking into bulk, Likely due to the expected 32nm and lower transitions power envelopes? Bulk is also more easilly adaptable to hkmg processes as far as I have read.
Don't think there are any 2p i7's out there atm, and the server side isnt expected until 2h 2009.. so maybe in a few months.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Please no _rate benchmarks.
And yes, an i7 beats a 2 socket Shanghai in rate benches. Only due to trichannel and fast memory (up to 2000Mhz). With 2 socket Xeon 5500s you gonna see insane rate benches. But they are utter crap. Its abit like running sandra memory bench on the systems and claim thats how you measure scaling of computational power.
Rates benches are an ancient leftover that basicly means nothing. Specially for the "normal" server park/datacenters.
How big was this 32nm SRAM part? Intels was 291Mbit and 2billion transistors running at 3.8Ghz. TSMC was 2mbit. What was AMDs?Quote:
Originally Posted by verndewd
AMD also showed 45nm SRAM year(s) ago. There is just along way from SRAM and SRAM sizes to actual products and ramping the facility. And the NFC (Like TSMCs) roadmaps are ramp, not production.
Its easy to get fooled by it. AMDs own roadmap is perhaps the best indication when with 32nm desktop parts in 2011.
Dude, seriously, you need to chill with the constant pro intel rambling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Vern only said it is interesting that the AMD IBM coalition is looking into bulk in regards to 32nm, there is no justification whatsoever for these attempts to turn the thread into an intel vs amd thread.
:down:
What, he is just pointing out the obvious and telling the truth that AMD is not competitive, the slides and marketting will get people disapointed once again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
Tbh I don't know if I was being sarcastic even. Reader may decide.
Hex had a icore7 on a TRUE hitting 83C overclocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
phenom over clocked only hit's about 60C and lower wit ha decent cooler.
True, just as Miss Banana showed LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Anyway, come on AMD, bring it to the Desktop at a fair price.:clap:
But Phenom is still slower so it should be cooler;) I wonder how hot it would get at 3.8 or 4GHz?Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
http://www.tbreak.com/articles/13/1/...ing/Page1.html
HardOCP (Video) showed 92 with stock cooler. Who'd use a stock cooler to overclock? 83 on the Ultra 120 and 80 with water for them but that's a 2.66@3.8GHz:up:"We Ran them for days without problems at these these *temps." Except for the stock cooler, 3.8GHz still over a 1GHz on the processors many said wouldn't overclock. 80C with water and 83 with at T-120.Quote:
No surprises with the temperatures for the 130W CPU’s especially the 965EE hitting 4GHz on a stock air cooling solution.
AMD still has their work cut out for them.
Oh, a Deneb running at 4.0Ghz about 53C on AIR..... (100% core load of course)Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
http://i35.tinypic.com/27xmlu1.jpg
There is a C1 stepping (if it aint fake that is). Isn't this the SS that was argued about for weeks/months on end?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzman
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Deneb Rev C1 got very close to MM's i7 965 air record (both on air), the one I'm talking about is REAL and from someone at MSI. We just don't know what temperatures, but it's manageable on a Oorochi. :p:
http://forum.coolaler.com/showpost.p...4&postcount=50
ITOCP had some temps on the 3.2Ghz (supposedly 1.5V) Deneb too, was <45C, on air but no idea of the cooler.
that Oorochi was 4.3ghz.
there are many benchmarks but most are synthetic, haven't seen much real game ones.
I know there was q9650 vs an Icore7.
I thought was was a photochopped one, since the 4006 and 4009 are quite obviously different sizes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stukov
Nein. AOD used to have fonts that were like that.
This is an actual AOD bug, which actually confirms the screenshot's legitimacy, right? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
But even if you ignore that, my link is close to that too.
The AOD version appears old and the cpu-z version reads the voltage wrong. Mainly, I put the ss up more for entertainment and pushback. There are three or so sources that show similar results but usually the hsf is huge and the test is on an open bench setup or just a standalone board. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that 4.0Ghz is doable, load stable. My belief from everything I have read is that the chip's tdp is lower than current phenom's, and certainly much lower than Nehalem. I think the Hex test of Nehalem was also on a bench and so temps with a case will probably be higher. Even in the Hex test Nehalem, running at stock clocks with the stock hsf, had temps at 75c under 100% load. It's a great chip just hotter than heill.
I dont doubt the mhz is possible, just that screen doesn't seem like the best evidence. Glad to know though the AOD checks out in that regard though, havent used it yet so didn't know about that bug :P. Well if shanghai's power consumption is on, it seems like that could be the case. It does seem that nehalem + voltage = a steep temp curve, which is maybe a good reason for the tdp guards etc they have, although it seems stable at temp. Time will tell, it could also just be early steppings... remember the early q6600's vs G0 steppings, and that was a much less complex chip. I think clockwise deneb should be able to hit the same clocks as nehalems are... and maybe a bit cooler, i guess we ll see. lol I m torn, i want both platforms to play with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzman
From some "internal" screenshots that I've seen, retail Shanghai is Rev C2.
So I assume Deneb should also be at least at Rev C2 when they release it.
i wonder why noone has posted this...
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...2002243&pgno=1
They also have some transistor performance numbers in there, to bad its only for Pmos. :(
Another interesting figure is that the say Ion/Ioff is 10 times better then on the intel proces... to bad there are no numbers.
I hope we see a complete list of the performance indicators for the transistor. :yepp:
I already posted that link 2 days ago :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
nothing showed up in search, not for the link nor for eetimes. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Try harder :p: :Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=48
lol no wonder when the url ist different. :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
It is filed under "news" section on eetimes website because it was err news...BTW it's the same article and on top of that you have a whole quote from it in my post...
You could just type eetimes in search box and my post would be in top 3 results...Simple as that.
edit:actually it IS a first result ,before your 1st post above ,that contains eetimes in it...So you can't use search properly...
Seeing as how it's often not possible to compare the temperature readings of different stepping CPUs from the same company, I doubt the temperature readings of two completely different CPU families from separate companies really much, especially with reviews that have Nehalem system power consumption comparable to Phenom systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...2002243&pgno=1
I'd be ashamed to link to such bad and Mis-information!Quote:
Intel's Nehalem is due out soon, but many of the features of what has widely been touted as a "new" architecture are only new to Intel. AMD's previous-generation Barcelona was the first quad-core processor and also included 2 MB of shared L3 cache integrated on the same chip with a Northbridge memory controller. AMD's latest design, Shanghai, triples the L3 cache size to 6 MB, but all the basic building blocks were already incorporated in the 65-nm Barcelona chip.
Lame since IMC is not "NEW" to Intel LOL!
L3 is OLD NEWS to Intel.
Monolithic Quad-Core processors at 65nm were a bad Idea and Intel was PROVED right for not making the same rushed mistake AMD made. Intel went MCM at the right time (eventhough both cores still sucked) and it seems went *Monolithic at the right time. If it were the other way around many here would be talking about how dumb it was for Intel to try *it @65nm.
First see above?Quote:
Intel maintains a lead in process technology. AMD had a lead in architecture, but Intel's Nehalem will offer many of the innovations AMD introduced, along with a few of Intel's own. Whether you believe AMD or Intel is better at a given point in time, it's clear that competition is driving innovation, resulting in better products and more choice.
How are they in the lead architecture wise when they're slower in MOST cases? Point to Point and IMC is AMD's saving grace (thank goodness since NO ONE needs an all powerful Intel without competition). Without the EV6 based Intel licensed tech, AMD would have died years ago. AMD will kick Intel's A$$ when its CORE/S improve IPC wise. When CSI hits the market, that's (core IPC improvement) what they'll need more than anything.
Well you got some points there but I hope this will not start the flame war again. Keep it civilized guys...Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
No need for flames, I only gave facts!Quote:
Originally Posted by Katanai
Then this one will. RIGHT NOW, Deneb is ahead for my next upgrade! Not because some mis-informed writer. Not because of some misplace Fan loyalty, but from common sense. Example. AMD ships a 2.7GHz X4 Deneb that's the same clock for clock speed as an Intel i7-920. Let's say the benchmarks show AMD has similar performance. Unless Intel can blow them away (I doubt BTW) AMD has a great case for improved sales. IF they ship it with a similar price they'll do well IMHO. I'd buy one if they did. They'll already have cheaper RAM and Motherboards. Less memory bandwidth? Since most Desktop apps don't depend on it now and in the foreseeable future:rolleyes: it will still not matter in most cases. Running 8 threads and heavy multitasking isn't that important to me either:D That's why I'm using a Wolfdale right now.
If things don't improve with the economy though, unfortunately neither will get my business.:(
But z0mfg you n00b! You should spend to boost economy:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Well, that's what Im telling myself to justify my hardware addiction