What are you intel boys raving about?
Have you seen this thread?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...249434&page=16
Printable View
What are you intel boys raving about?
Have you seen this thread?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...249434&page=16
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
Actually I never really said intel's 8 threads outperform AMD's 6 threads. But that the comparison of threads is just as relevant as the comparison of cores. Its the relevance of the comparison you should try and focus on, if you wish to debate that post.
http://richierich1212.smugmug.com/ph...3_jHQrG-X2.jpg
I dont know bout any special sauce, but where is this whipping ?
Anyho.Seems like theyre on par.And 1055T costs 200$, and i know i know, you got a deal somewhere and you got 920 for the same.
But 1035T is going to be 179$.Without any special deals.
I can put it on mine 2,5 year old mobo.
If i would put it on a recent AM3 (1+ year old mbs) i have upgrade path to BD.
1366 is dead in the water, 1156 is too.AM3 is cheaper.
Wheres is this "bad" mojo coming from guys ? Amd hate or something ?
I just dont get it, these X6s seem to be fantastic offer for the price and there is no denying that.
Wonder how long truecrypt will be a "valid" benchmark, cause with the upcoming version they gona add support for WNI and then its just gets ugly (for any cpu that is compared to a westmere core).Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Thats for sure, any HW based AES will be miles away.Its still gonna be valid to compare bloomfield/lynnfield and thuban tho.Quote:
Wonder how long truecrypt will be a "valid" benchmark, cause with the upcoming version they gona add support for WNI and then its just gets ugly (for any cpu that is compared to a westmere core).
And it seems like theyre the direct competitors.
The 1090T at 5.8ghz on win7 64bit and no tweaks and nb at stock i can do Wprime 32 at 4.2 seconds on the new 890FX mobo i am not allowed to show you some thing because og NDA.
Nobody is hating on AMD. Mr. Informal made some exaggerated remarks and I wanted to correct it. Is that hating AMD? Thubans are not bad, and allows AMD users to taste some of the performance of Core i7, given the right environment. Plus competition is a good thing. The only "bad mojo" in this thread is Infornmal working hard to distort the picture, as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
That's quite some result, what cooling, air or water?Quote:
Originally Posted by Riska
how did this go from x6 reviews and info, to whats the best upgrade for my i7 9xx?
Firstly, you broke the NDA when you just said how long it takes 1090T to do wprime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Riska
Secondly, the chips are already available at retail here and there so dont be so uptight ;-).
And just register a diff nickname here and post the :banana::banana::banana::banana: out of this cpu :P.
Its not like theres some kind of NDA CIA out there ...
EDIT
That ironic remark is just mean :PQuote:
That's quite some result, what cooling, air or water?
Ln2 and the mobo is Asus crossair IV formula 890FX
I respect my NDA and thats that!!!
Thanks, I'm sure there's more in that chip. Give it some more volts and push it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Riska
same way it always does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
someone compares AMD's latest cpu to intel's or the other way around.
then intel fans cry foul over which intel cpu should be compared to.
then AMD fans fight the intel fans about which intel cpu should be used.
then without fail,happens every time when people care too much for their
brand they lash out and defend them like they were married to AMD or Intel
things start to get idiotically out of control,to the point the tread is ruined.
Thats really nice and lovely of you toward this big soulless corporation :-).Quote:
I respect my NDA and thats that!!!
Could you atleast give us info when NDA specifically ends ? Date / hour would be fantastic mate :).
opos
Tell that to the wonderful pair of X5670s that I have running in some nice 2 year "old" ASUS P6T Mobos.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
:D
I meant no future upgrade plan.Intel already announced next socket.Quote:
Originally Posted by mstp2009
As for people who bought them when they launched, of course , they got decent run out of them, one process shrink and 4 to 6 cores.However whole package wasnt and isnt exactly cheap ;-).
how does it whip it, I would call that a spanking. Plus, if you own a AM2+ or AM3 board, why would you go Intel? And for those who don't OC, AMD's x6 is going to do very well against those 920/930 chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
Well, people don't exactly come to XS to talk cheap. This is XtremeSystems afterall, not MediocreSystems.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
Yes everything true, but joe sixpack usually doesn't upgrade just the cpu, if the pc is to slow they buy a new one. Thats one of the reasons why I never understand why people always are crying so much about a socket change... plus most enthusiats change mobo anyway when they upgrade the cpu, due to certain feature that come with new boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
Its not ,extremeleyxpensivesystemes too.And a system can be xtreme in so many ways.You can cool even a sempron for example with LN2.Quote:
Well, people don't exactly come to XS to talk cheap. This is XtremeSystems afterall, not MediocreSystems.
And what this argument does in an new AMD cpu thread ? I mean really ? Just because i dont have the money to dump 1.5k$ on a cpu doesnt mean i am not enthusiast.
So ? Are we Joe Uninformed sixpack here or smthn ?And about mobo change, that depends, 890FX doesnt really give me anything besides SATA 6GBPS(which i dont need) to go for a new mobo.Quote:
Yes everything true, but joe sixpack usually doesn't upgrade just the cpu, if the pc is to slow they buy a new one. Thats one of the reasons why I never understand why people always are crying so much about a socket change... plus most enthusiats change mobo anyway when they upgrade the cpu, due to certain feature that come with new boards.
I dont get your point totally, so its wrong that its AM2+ compatible ? It is not a good thing ? So its a bad thing ? How ?
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
I don't get why some people equate being extreme with expensive hardware. Ridiculous and very narrow-minded.
Yes, indeed. HT is an architectural feature to improve utilization of the pipeline/execution units, it does not change the overall results, 4 cores vs 6 cores, why would one turn something off that ups performance in most cases?Quote:
Originally Posted by SEA
Couldn't agree more. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by insurgent
That's fine and dandy if people can afford the most expensive gear, I don't take any issue with that. But that doesn't mean everyone can.
Can everyone involved just quit the Intel vs AMD in this thread? It's a preview thread of processors from AMD. Let's keep it to that.
We all, including those of us on Intel-platform, should be happy that AMD is making progress. Because, a little more push, and it will be flying cheap 6-core 32nm Intel CPU all over the place, soon.
This is the best take on it, Thuban will (aside from winning the hearts of many enthusiast) likely induce Intel to populate lower price points with 6 core Gulftown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam_oslo
+1,that goes for both sides.it takes two points of crazy views to keep this crap goingQuote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
exactly right.AMD kicking ass is a good thing.amazing that some dont see things this way:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam_oslo
Not sure if I understand your point. (Or you - mine?)Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Yes, It adds performance. There is dedicated hardware for HT within every i7 core that IS part of extra core. So it is not just 4 cores.
For example, here pure 4 cores in cinebench 11.5 have only 80% of performance compared to case with HT on.
His point is that the die space required to add HT is minimal. Far far less that the % increase in performance it gives for multi-threaded applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by SEA
I remember Intel didn't have any plans for a cheap i7, but suddenly announced the i7 920 just 2 months before the release of i7 line-up. Some has speculated that the rumors about a competitive Deneb forced Intel to release a cheap i7. That move killed the Dened before berth, actually.
I guess AMD has learned a lesson there, and therefore kept the cards about 1055T/1090T pretty tight. That's why Intel has released 980x without any cheap locked 6-core 32nm, I mean.
Intel has to counter the 1055T/1090T now, because these early results shows these can shake the midrange marked. Intel can of course release some really good and cheap i7 (cheap 935?, and 865?), but can't (traditionally doesn't want to compete on price), and therefore will have to release a few cheap locked 32nm 6-core, hopefully, I think.
I see your point, you are arguing Intel is the first on the market with a true 8 core on the desktop-- AMD ,and most anyone with an objective take on the technology, would disagree :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SEA
My point is that it takes 6 amd cores to get to the performance of 4 intel cores, it's really that simple. HT is an architectural feature that enables one intel core to populate and keep the dispatch stations full, yielding more instructions retired per clock or more work done per unit time.
HT is not an extra core (though it is recognized as an extra core in the OS), it is a method of interleaving two distinct contextual threads through the pipeline that would otherwise not be populated -- HT extracts parallelism at the thread level in addition to the instruction level. Most processors (AMD/Intel/IBM power) that are superscalar OoO driven are actually very inefficient. Even with a 4 issue design, Intel cannot overcome the logistical latency inherent in branch misprediction, cache misses (long memory calls), and ambiguations, as such cores, even at 'full load' spend more time idle than they spend actually performing an execution. AMD is at the same disadvantage, the actual IPC of AMD cores never approach 3 just as the actual IPC of an Intel core never approaches 4.
The fact is Intel can push more work per core than AMD can, in order for AMD to reach this level of performance, they need 6 cores since each core produces less useful work than an Intel core.
This brings up the point mentioned above, Thuban will be ~ 350 mm^2, Nehalem is on the order of 260 mm^2 (quad core) both at 45 nm. It cost AMD more to get to this level of performance, it is that simple. That makes no difference to you and me, if AMD is willing to eat the margin and charge 300 bucks for a 6 core, so be it... cost to AMD is irrelevant to the end user.
Jack
I can't believe core size has become an excuse for AMD's CPUs performance.
A CPU isn't made of only cores you know. Why don't you say 758M transistors or 258 mm2 perform much worse than 731M transistors or 263 mm2?
And then HT...
I wonder what people might say if Intel used, say, 4-way SMT. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Saw pre-order prices here in Belgium from 275-320 euro pricerange.Can i better order a 920 then,cause that one is 235??
just wait for the reviewsQuote:
Originally Posted by bloodbanger
i guess that turbo + more cores will havbe no problem in pushing the 1090T beyond the 920s but only reviews will tell
additionally we're going to see the first 890FX boards soon :up:
Its most probably pre release price gouging, unless youre talking about 1090T then 275E should be right where its at.Quote:
Saw pre-order prices here in Belgium from 275-320 euro pricerange.Can i better order a 920 then,cause that one is 235??
However 1055T and 1035T which are basically the same chip should be going for 170-200E.
The 1090T is unlocked multiplier highest binned one like i7 975EE/ 965EE.
Because you've been attacking AMD in threads for months now? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
How is cost irrelevant?Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Slap this baby down on my AM3 board... off and running! It's convienant and cheap.
Fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
My statement about turbo core, whether you agree or not, sadly seems to be true, as some users in the AMD section are finding out.
Everything I've posted on XS is easily accessible by anyone (even guests), just click on my username and provide us with your proof. Unless you consider objective statements to be "attacking AMD." :confused:
The nda ends april 27 at 6 in the morning cet.
The first leaks on the cpu has flaws in them look at the wprime in the 6.7ghz thread it is 5.4 sek at 6.4ghz bad it is because the mobo 790fx only is running at 4 cores or the win is an old install my run was at 5.8ghz stock nb and no tweaks and it was at 4.2sek running at all 6 cores so i will think with 6.4 ghz and 4.5ghz nb and way tweaked mem 3 sek i possible
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
the super-hero who goes around & "corrects mis-statements about amd hardware by fanboys in threads"
ahhh weve heard all about you
so anyways what is this 'mis-statements' youre referring to from this thread?
also what statements about turbo core 'sadly seem to be true, as some users in amd section are finding out'?
what weve found out is you get 500mhz free boost when the cpu is using 3 threads or less, and even more boost when you up htt. people running w/ 3.8ghz 6 core w/ 4.4ghz turbo. please explain to all of us why you think this is a bad thing again. and also what users are finding what out? your statements are not very clear.
which thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
6am Central European Time = 11pm Central Time (USA). I'll stay up a little late tonight it seems :yepp:.
Never mind ohnoes, his 1st account got banned 4 months ago,now he is back to "correct" and "educate",again.
Read his statemenat again, he said the production costs of a X6 is irrelevant to to consumer, since the consumer only pays the retail price.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
Sorry Jack, I still have to disagree in one thing. Programmers have to program the application to be explicitly parallel to utilize HT. Single threaded apps won't benefit from HT at all. Neither can you expect that some your busiest thread would do more.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
So it is exactly like additional core: you have to do your program parallel. HT does not add any performance to one thread. At all.
I would consider a core with HT like some 1.x core. (say 1.25 of one core)
^
you just have described what HT is... its a way to increase the utilisation of one core (execution units). It possible to have as many SMT threads on one core as the developer of the cpu thinks it will do good. Best example is niagra from sun, with the ultrasparc T2 they have 8 threads per core and they gona double that with ultrasparc 3 to 16 threads per core. Just that it possible to execute more then one thread per core (simultaneously) doesn't make it a 1.xx core...
Your posts read like FUD and you target AMD threads, whether you agree or not, sadly seems to be true. I cite the quoted post as an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
Well not quite, multi threads app's will use multiple threads but can also use same resources at same time, in this case HT will bring down the SOE.Quote:
Originally Posted by SEA
HT is good for multi threads app's that dont use the same resources at one time. If you take a example of three AMD cores "deneb class" vs two INTEL cores "nehalem class" the SOE and performance is real world multi thread app's is very close.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/118?vs=83
at the egg
1055t $209.99
1090t $309.99
very nice prices
Just ordered a 1055 on Newegg...
Read the post again carefully, the cost to AMD is irrelevant to the end user, cost to us is what is irrelevent. If it cost AMD 50 bucks or 150 bucks or 500 bucks to actually make the processor that cost is irrelevant to the end user (it may be relevant to shareholders :) ), what they charge you and me at retail is all that matters to the end user.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
The point is that it costs AMD more to make a 6 core than it does Intel to make a quad core.
How do you know? proof please or epic fail. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
it does? how much does RnD factor in, or the cost to push for the 45nm process, or how many i7's vs PIIs were sold since then. do we know all those numbers, for all we know i7 may not have paid off, and phenom has. i dont think its ever going to be that simple to figure out which cost more when all were going by is mm2 sizeQuote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Very nice prices, hard to resist... just ordered 1090T for my backup rig @ egg with Crosshair IV.
I hope you're not serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
And all Jack commented was on the size, he didn't say anything else and just by going by size AMD does have to spend more and get less.
260 mm^2 vs 350 mm^2, yields are lower and costs are higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelly
How do you know yields are lower at GF? I always thought production yields were highly guarded secrets. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Woot. The egg is showing 1090T, mine on the way.
I don't, it is logical larger die yield less. This is a fundamental fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by freeloader
Across the same platform, this is true. Honestly, how can this be taken for granted when comparing different fabrication facilities using different techniques?Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
A quick video review I saw on youtube....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PODxo...NQ&feature=sub
You see that's a good point... however, it is still fundamental, AMD get's less die per wafer than Intel does, this is a huge cost delta.Quote:
Originally Posted by MirageSys
Frankly, why does anyone care what it costs AMD, they are selling these for 300 bucks a pop.... to achieve i7 like performance at 300 bucks is a good deal. What difference does it make? AMD is certainly making money on these since they are well above their ASPs generating ~ 40% gross margins.
i think the ftc is trying to neutralize this price advantage, as part of their lawsuit. i am of the same as JJ though, i thought everyone (err everyone here at XS lol) knew that chips cost more for amd than they do intel? but since amd got some of their tech back into the fold (apm i believe it is....when GF bought chartered), we might see in the future that this "cost" disparity; will become closer.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
From http://vr-zone.com/forums/641279/amd...re-i7-860.html
According to documents from AMD,
Phenom II X6 1055T
at Cinebench 2%
at Pov-Ray 19%
at 3DMark Vantage 1%
at Crysis 1%
faster than Core i7 860 !
http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/o...oarmdance1.gif