Sure. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by noki
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...ield_bloom.png
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...field_bl-1.png
Sure. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by noki
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...ield_bloom.png
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/k...field_bl-1.png
Vozer, this is outstanding work. Now a picture begins to emerge; and as has been suggested the Q6600 isn't dead after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vozer
Is it a good point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Throwed
Will the 6 and 8 core versions(and God only knows when AMD will actually release them) work in an AM2+ motherboard or will you have to go AM3 and pay the DDR3 tax?
the 6 cores and 8 cores shouldn't even be am3. it should be one of those new rectangular sockets that amd has created. and what do you mean god only knows when they will be released? its not very hard to just google it....... idk if amd is even making an 8 core.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
It looks to me like the Phenom II's still dont have enough intercore bandwidth, the FPU performance is lagging again, like it was in the K6 vs PII days and the ALU Performance could be improved too.
I had considered getting a Phenom II setup, but after a raft of benchmarks from numerous sources, i've come to the conclusion that a change to the Green side once again, would be a step BACKWARDS.
Come on AMD, pull the finger out :down:
Say again?Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
:confused:
"you are telling me"... "they are telling me"...
You are entitled to an opinion, and I usually enjoy your posts. :)
I am not telling you nothing. I am arguing with you. This is a discussion forum remember?
Edit:
Great work Vozer! :up:
If you bring in the price factor we see a winner I think.
Remember that the ci7-route will mean 20% performance increase (mostly synthetic) for 500% the price (completyely new rig vs. new CPU).
The reason for that is that AMD's new FPU needs a re compile of your software for it to work at max.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai Robinson
And talking about going "backwards" how much of a difference do you notice when you're using your computer on a daily basis? I for example always have a lot running at the same time. My experience with intel cpu's is that they get in trouble when I have too much running at the same time.
Too bad I never see benchmarks that simulate a daily use of computers.
For example rip a dvd while internet radio is on, 3 different instant messengers, 6 internet explorer windows open and many more. My AMD systems handle all that a lot smoother than my intel systems does.
*Cough* Bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:. *Cough*
I believe deneb with some tweaking and maybe some ddr3 will be very close to yorkfield o/ced offcourse.
Are you so sure?Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
Hasn't AMD said they aren't supplying AM2+ Quads after Q2 09, yet you think 6 & 8 core versions will work with AM2+ boards? :nuts:
Well unlike you, I don't automatically believe everything I see on an AMD Powerpoint slide.Quote:
and what do you mean god only knows when they will be released? its not very hard to just google it.......
Hence my question about when it would be released.Quote:
idk if amd is even making an 8 core.
Amd said they will be coming out with 6 and 12 core cpu's for servers. I also read something about 8 core desktop cpu for 09, possibly that's what the Phenom fx will be. :eek:
ok so heres a few things. if you actually read my post i said it is using amd's new rectangular socket. no where did i say it uses am2+. also why do i need to look at all the amd power point slides? why can't i just ask them? or even better walk in there and look at them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Roofsniper.......Him and a few others in here DON'T read or DON'T know how to read. Keep your IQ and don't argue with brick walls. A few of these fellas talk loud and say nothing.:down: They usually end up making themselves look silly anyway as you can see.
Yes, but it didn't appear to make a lot of sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
So what did you mean by saying "the 6 cores and 8 cores shouldn't even be am3."?Quote:
i said it is using amd's new rectangular socket. no where did i say it uses am2+
Aren't all AMD CPU's released in the next 12 to 18 months at least going to either be on AM2+ or AM3 socket only? As you appeared to rule out AM3, that is why I questioned you about AM2+
You have a direct line to Dirk?Quote:
also why do i need to look at all the amd power point slides? why can't i just ask them?
They will let you pass security?Quote:
or even better walk in there and look at them.
Actually YOUR post is the one that doesn't make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Throwed
So what were the 6 to 8 cores going to slot into, when he said "the 6 cores and 8 cores shouldn't even be am3."?
If not AM3, doesn't that only leave AM2+?
Projecting?Quote:
Some people say the most ignorant crap even after they put their foot in their own mouth.
I was waiting for that "argument" to show up. When your favorite company releases in 2009 a product that is competing head-to-head with a 2-year-old product from the Dark Side, it all comes down to arguments like "how much do we really need?" and "my S754 system performs as well as your S775 one" :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by TigeriS
And remember: a 2 year lag in this industry, is as big as the difference between remaining competitive and going out of business :/
Finally, I know that AMD going bankrupt is of no benefit for anyone in here, but there's no point in not saying things the way they are.
Intel will be shrinking their i7 line very soon, so if AMD are releasing their new product in 2009, a few quarters before the i7's 32nm shrink, it should be at least competitive with the 45nm i7's, not just struggling with the 65nm Core2's that were introduced in November 2006 :(
Yes, we can start saying that "I only care about Quake 4 performance", "I'm happy with my 5200+" and "It's not a complete slaughter in the native 64-bit apps" but none of these excuses will change the fact that you cannot release a new CPU 5% faster than your previous one and 25% slower than the current competition. At this point, I am starting to wonder if AMD can ever design something better than Intel's product and the hints I have been getting in the last couple of year, are just plain disappointing...
Look at Vozer's table: Kentsfield beating Deneb in every single 3D rendering test. That shouldn't even be happening, it's not acceptable.
To put it in perspective, I'll use an analogy: how ridiculous would it look if ATI released their brand new 5870 and "in a few tests" it was scoring worse than an 8800GT. Just think about it...
Who needs to game at more than 1024 x 768 and go over 50FPS ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosen.
Don't forget price, and actual "smoothness" when actually using the card for everyday tasks such as actually gaming, actually browsing, and actually watching movies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
I'm quietly confident that ATI's Dual Cards will microstutter much less than Nvidia's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
It's all in the pedigree. :D
I'd imagine he's talking about one of the server sockets: F, F+, G34 (I think only the last one is actually rectangular)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
this nice but I would really like to point out that 12mb cache is a 25% more then deneb. If the Q9400 we could see a the difference cache makes it york field, since it's improved over conroe and conroe 4mb was 10% faster then then ones with 2mbs of cache.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vozer
if intel can make a Q8200 to compete with Agena, with the same amount of cache I'm sure they can make an 8mb cache york field too.
What are you implying? All this talk about cache size makes no sense. The 12MB cache costs more, because of the obvious speed boost. What stops AMD from incorporating 24MB onto their cpus, besides design limits? Besides, the Q6600 has 8MB cache too.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
Has anyone else noticed that cpu performance has started to matter in gaming again? Of course only single gpu tests matter and overclocking really matters again, There is a thread in the news section where rammsteiner actually said this
"Time will tell though. Numbers hardly matter anyway, Agena was more a disaster because it couldnt OC very good. OC'ers killing people for a better benchmark number dont like that, go to Intel, average customers read and hear how and what and go with Intel. Now with the improved clocking I think they already gain a whole lot. Having a 4Ghz i7 or Deneb for gaming... Now dont tell me this difference is so significant you'd get an i7 over Deneb"
Yes folks overclocking matters again but what is funny is that old rammy has ALWAYS said "I prefer phenom because it is fun to overclock " now he says "Agena was more a disaster because it couldnt OC very good" WTF?
Unfortunately ipc still does not matter for some reason.
Remember people, All that matters is gpu limited gaming benches.
cache dentistry form the transistor level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
meaning it takes less transistor for intel, then it will for AMD. AMd is working on improving that already.
I just want know how much of difference in cache it makes on york field and/or wolfdale.
rammy is talking about two different things in those one is about phenom launch and getting poor reviews because it failed to get to 3.0ghz also seem to because of TLB in OC.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
he prefers to mes with phenom what's so hard to get about that ? there are ton of things to tweak.
yea.......:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
May I add all the other AMD advantages that (surprisingly enough) cannot be documented, but can only be seen and appreciated by specific people under specific conditions...Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
My poor E8400: overly expensive, IMC-less and only 50% overclock, feels a bit sluggish and un-snappy. I was better off with my €450 3800+ :shakes: