K10 3dmark06 results

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-29-2007, 11:27 PM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by nn_step

WRONG, it is still true. Yes I agree that Intel's Quads perform better than AMD's dual cores in many respects but not in all respects. For Example, Virtualization. AMD has hardware support for many(all) used virtualization instructions, Intel does not. Thus AMD can do in 6 clock cycles what takes Intel a hundred regular instructions with latencies ranging from 1 clock cycle to hundreds of clock cycles. So that even in a best case scenario, AMD's 6 clock cycles still owns Intel's 100 clock cycles. Thus even with Quadruple the numbers of Cores, double the clock speed it doesn't make up for the 16 fold superior performance that AMD has for the given task.
I'm not suggesting it is a common situation, nor will it even matter in a desktop but it is an area that AMD's tradeoffs give them superior performance.

Just shut up , IIRC the link you use as proof has older , Netburst core Xeons , which are 10-30% slower in some tasks than comparable Opterons.
The rest with clock cycles and latencies are only in your head ; go out in the world from time to time ; it might help.
08-30-2007, 02:14 AM
[XC] riptide

Now now savantu. IIRC the link nn used to use was a AMD sponsored test. It could very well be true however.
08-30-2007, 03:23 AM
savantu

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] riptide

Now now savantu. IIRC the link nn used to use was a AMD sponsored test. It could very well be true however.

I didn't say it wasn't true ; I merely questioned the level of his claims.

Core improved VT and the new revision G0 brings other improvements ; Penryn will up the ante too.
Things aren't as black and white as nn says ; for example Intel has an extra level in VT vs. Pacifica which makes it less SW dependant.
08-30-2007, 04:07 AM
tsahi

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNizze

30K is for TRIFIRE! Youtube is your friend! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7EZmYth6TM

The source of the news said specifically two cards:

"The reference motherboard containing RD790 chip set packed two HD 2900XT cards,"

You are saying that he is a complete idiot (how hard is video card counting? case closed or open, it is very easy) or that he is flat out lying.

ths source:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=41970

On the other hand, he source also refers to "Corsair’s Dominator PC2-9136C5D" and they are part of the youtube video:

Corsair’s Dominator:
http://corsair.com/_images/products/...escription.jpg
08-30-2007, 05:22 AM
hardrail

Quote:

Originally Posted by adamsleath

the more unsubstantiated crap i hear re k10 the more annoying it is :down:

i smell something...the smell is either:
1. bull sh1t, or
2. intel's cooked goose :hehe:

I agree, it is very annoying.

This fall could either be very embarrassing or very glorifying for AMD.
08-30-2007, 05:46 AM
dinos22

Quote:

Originally Posted by nn_step

WRONG, it is still true. Yes I agree that Intel's Quads perform better than AMD's dual cores in many respects but not in all respects. For Example, Virtualization. AMD has hardware support for many(all) used virtualization instructions, Intel does not. Thus AMD can do in 6 clock cycles what takes Intel a hundred regular instructions with latencies ranging from 1 clock cycle to hundreds of clock cycles. So that even in a best case scenario, AMD's 6 clock cycles still owns Intel's 100 clock cycles. Thus even with Quadruple the numbers of Cores, double the clock speed it doesn't make up for the 16 fold superior performance that AMD has for the given task.
I'm not suggesting it is a common situation, nor will it even matter in a desktop but it is an area that AMD's tradeoffs give them superior performance.

seriously who gives a :banana::banana::banana::banana: about virtualisation

until they make it work properly with true indepenent workloads off one computer VT is a load of crap IMO

i want my ONE computer to simulataneously play games in one room, surf the net in another and be a full blown HTPC with HDTV feed and real time recording in the third, hell while i'm at it hook up my room 4 and 5 with some movie playback as well :rolleyes:
08-30-2007, 06:01 AM
T2k

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinos22

seriously who gives a :banana::banana::banana::banana: about virtualisation

until they make it work properly with true indepenent workloads off one computer VT is a load of crap IMO

i want my ONE computer to simulataneously play games in one room, surf the net in another and be a full blown HTPC with HDTV feed and real time recording in the third, hell while i'm at it hook up my room 4 and 5 with some movie playback as well :rolleyes:

Umm you're quite clueless about the whole industry, I can tell. Here are some snippets from the real world so you might will consider things beyond your stinky basement...
1. Server market makes the mfrs fat, not your pathetic little home machine purchases.
2. Profit rate is much higher on server units and virtualization is one of the hottest - and I personally think the best - thing on the server market for years and on top of it helps to sell new CPUs.
3. I, for one (animation/post company), only use DC Opterons for our VMware machines: each DL145 (2x O285, 8GB RAM, SAS drives) machine runs at least 2 virtualized version of former physical servers - I save money on electricity, on management, on networking, everything and most importantly a lot of headaches/work (e.g. floating license servers: no need for server re-authentication for a dozen or so software after a hardware failure etc).

So the only load of crap here was your post, thanks to your ignorance on virtualization. :ROTF:
08-30-2007, 06:06 AM
T2k

Quote:

Originally Posted by nn_step

WRONG, it is still true. Yes I agree that Intel's Quads perform better than AMD's dual cores in many respects but not in all respects. For Example, Virtualization. AMD has hardware support for many(all) used virtualization instructions, Intel does not. Thus AMD can do in 6 clock cycles what takes Intel a hundred regular instructions with latencies ranging from 1 clock cycle to hundreds of clock cycles. So that even in a best case scenario, AMD's 6 clock cycles still owns Intel's 100 clock cycles. Thus even with Quadruple the numbers of Cores, double the clock speed it doesn't make up for the 16 fold superior performance that AMD has for the given task.
I'm not suggesting it is a common situation, nor will it even matter in a desktop but it is an area that AMD's tradeoffs give them superior performance.

Besides this it really depends on application. According to our tests our dual FX-74 test WS is able to keep up the pace with our dual 5160 test nodes at least in half of the tests - that's pretty impressive if we consider how old is this current AMD architecture.
08-30-2007, 06:20 AM
dinos22

Quote:

Originally Posted by T2k

Umm you're quite clueless about the whole industry, I can tell. Here are some snippets from the real world so you might will consider things beyond your stinky basement...
1. Server market makes the mfrs fat, not your pathetic little home machine purchases.
2. Profit rate is much higher on server units and virtualization is one of the hottest - and I personally think the best - thing on the server market for years and on top of it helps to sell new CPUs.
3. I, for one (animation/post company), only use DC Opterons for our VMware machines: each DL145 (2x O285, 8GB RAM, SAS drives) machine runs at least 2 virtualized version of former physical servers - I save money on electricity, on management, on networking, everything and most importantly a lot of headaches/work (e.g. floating license servers: no need for server re-authentication for a dozen or so software after a hardware failure etc).

So the only load of crap here was your post, thanks to your ignorance on virtualization. :ROTF:

don't know if you realise this but you are in the wrong forum

go to 2CPU.com if you are after info and server market users

this ain't the place :rolleyes:

as to my "industry knowledge" i've been around all channel structures up and down and even had my own company target specialised server and workstation markets but i am posting my reply specifically about products and to a forum which does not focus on that so next time you have a brain fart engage the gray matter a little more intensely
08-30-2007, 06:47 AM
T2k

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinos22

don't know if you realise this but you are in the wrong forum

go to 2CPU.com if you are after info and server market users

I wasn't 'after info', I simply replied to your moronic comment. Also since you're ignorant at least you should be nice instead of being ignorant AND arrogant, you know...

[qutoe]
this ain't the place :rolleyes:
[/quote]

Yes, it is the place, no matter how hard you're trying to save your face now - look the psot you replied to, johnny... :rolleyes:

Quote:

as to my "industry knowledge" i've been around all channel structures up and down and even had my own company target specialised server and workstation markets

Suuuuure... these 19-ys old-styled rants really show your knowledge about "specialised server and workstation markets"... :ROTF:

Quote:

but i am posting my reply specifically about products and to a forum which does not focus on that

BS. You replied to a post which specifically pointed out why AMD is still a better choice for a number of implementations.

Quote:

so next time you have a brain fart engage the gray matter a little more intensely

:rolleyes: Stop embarrassing yourself - you posted a clueless idiotic thing and now this lame attempt to save face is really pathetic, I can tell you that.:down:

PS: I am no way an AMD fan, currently I am planning to buy Intel, just to make it clear it's not some kind of childish 'who is fan of which maker' kind of spat...
08-30-2007, 12:52 PM
caligula

Quote:

Originally Posted by nn_step

WRONG, it is still true. Yes I agree that Intel's Quads perform better than AMD's dual cores in many respects but not in all respects. For Example, Virtualization. AMD has hardware support for many(all) used virtualization instructions, Intel does not. Thus AMD can do in 6 clock cycles what takes Intel a hundred regular instructions with latencies ranging from 1 clock cycle to hundreds of clock cycles. So that even in a best case scenario, AMD's 6 clock cycles still owns Intel's 100 clock cycles. Thus even with Quadruple the numbers of Cores, double the clock speed it doesn't make up for the 16 fold superior performance that AMD has for the given task.
I'm not suggesting it is a common situation, nor will it even matter in a desktop but it is an area that AMD's tradeoffs give them superior performance.

:eek2::eek2::eek2:
Wazaaaa dude, tell us what'cha smokin' so we can treat you properly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dinos22

seriously who gives a :banana::banana::banana::banana: about virtualisation

Well, I foggin' do.
Just consolidated my dataroom (not much, around 50 servers) to around 10 blades, each one having 2 well-clocked quaddies and loads of fb-ddr2, storage deployed on FC-SAN.
Of course, nowadays there is only one serious virtualisation product (no names :D) who doesn't give a fsck on virtualization capabilities, but have a chubby kernel with a twisted hypervisor. Nevertheless, looking at an open source alternative that really takes advantage of this, there are merely 7-800 relevant C code lines that make up a *good* hypervisor.
Of course, virtualisation is crap for home users, but that is not a reason why it shouldn't exist. Compare it with AMD64 instructions, the only clear benefit that *some* people are geting out of it *nowadays* (when RAM is affordable for the average Joe) is using 4+ gigs of RAM. No 64-bit games, no 64-bit apps (except for the ones really needing 4+ gigs such as SQL servers, mail servers etc).
Savantu, there is still an advantage of Pacifica over Vanderpool - the ability to virtualize realmode kernels. Thus AMD is very useful for virtualizing DOS/Win3.x servers :D
Doh.
08-30-2007, 01:09 PM
HeavyH20

Virtualization is a nice feature if you are a developer running a number of VM's or running a datacenter and trying to dynamically allocate CPU load to each application. Yes, that's all good.

But, here at XS, we are more into the 3D performance of a single machine. So, have to agree with Dinos22. And, if you had any background on him, you wouldn't be sending unfounded snide remarks his way. :D
08-30-2007, 01:14 PM
m411b

This is also a waste of space!!
08-30-2007, 02:14 PM
dinos22

i bet you whatever amount you guys want that the first thing we all do is boot into bios and turn of VT :D useless :D
08-30-2007, 02:23 PM
Movieman

Puts on Mod hat reluctantly:
C'mon guys, stop with the personal attacks..
Calling people idiots or anything else just diminishes you and your argument not them..
Stop and think of all the different knowledge levels here and when you see something posted that is ludicrous and you KNOW for certain, not think, but KNOW that persons info is wrong, use your intellect and knowledge to inform them nicely as to what they missed.
Education is the answer, not insulting.
08-30-2007, 02:24 PM
Nazu

Just wait for the proper reviews of Phenom and then we can see how good is it. Those Inquirer's stories about Phenom scoring 30k in 3dmark have already been proven false (=meaning the cpu score would be something like 15 000. QX6850 clocked at 5.2GHz gets something like 8000).
08-31-2007, 07:12 AM
caligula

Who ever gives a damn about INQ or FUDzilla? :DThey should be presenting what they have the most there: landmines and sniper rifles.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page