You do bring up a good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasparz
Printable View
You do bring up a good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasparz
LOL man you are so full of :banana::banana::banana::banana: it's not even funny. Some of you guys will do ANYTHING to sugarcoat AMD's current predicament, it's rather sad but slightly hilarious nonetheless. :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasparz
Firstly, an A64 3000+ is CLEARLY superior to an XP 3200+. You want proof?
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...0_6.html#sect0
The A64 3000+ beats the XP 3200+ in 95% of the benchmarks! Many by significant margins as well.
Next, you want to compare a Pentium EE to a LOW END E6300? LOL cmon, how about comparing it to a freaking X6800... and besides, the E6300 isn't any slower the EE anyway.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/int...spx?i=2795&p=9
You make up 'facts' to try to justify your argument, hoping people are ignorant enough to actually believe the BS you're sprouting.
As for the first retail Phenoms overclocking to 4GHz on air... LOL! Yeah, AMD just decided to scale back their launch speeds to 2.4GHz and you think they're gonna hit 4GHz on air!!! ROFL!!!
Phenom 7xxx are supposed to be the triple cores... the X4 are the 9xxx models...
Actually, he just got debunked and then some. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
I told Winchester, not 2.0Ghz 3000+ Newcastle. Newcastle was very rare on s939 and mainly used in s754.Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
If you want to compare it to x6800, then compare x2 6400+ with fastest Phenom, not slowest.
If you would read it clearly, i'm trying to do comparing with fastest old gen vs slowest new gen cpu's. F3 K8 CPU's are doing 3.5Ghz with air. I told somewhere that F3 chips can do 3.5Ghz, they all laughed. Now when AMD dropped prices and more people purchased these cpu's, we are seeing lot of 3.5Ghz aircooled Windsors.
I'm using Intel for main main system, and both laptops if you would like to know.
Umm... you do realise that both Winchester and Newcastle core 3000+s are heaps faster than an XP 3200+. In fact, as you'll see here, http://www.legitreviews.com/article/118/3/ Winchester is faster than Newcastle anyway, so I don't see your point? If anything you just made your ridiculous point even MORE invalid! Talk about digging yourself a deeper hole?
I've already shown that the E6300 is no slower than the PE 965, what are you trying to prove again?
You do realise the fastest Phenom @ launch will be 2.4GHz, and that it will most likely lose to an X2 6400+ in any benchmark that isn't massively multithreaded.
And WTF, what does F3 K8 overclocking have to do with Phenom overclocking?! You're talking about a 90nm process that has been tweaked for close to 2 years to a new 65nm process on a new architecture that is clearly having initial scaling problems.
Geez, if Phenom was overclocking to 4GHz on air you'd think AMD would be more than capable of releasing it a top bin @ 3GHz instead of 2.4GHz, no?
I don't know if you are blinded by faith, or happily living in ignorance. Either way it doesn't look like facts and reality mean anything to you, so I'll just leave you alone in your fantasy world, where the XP 3200+ outperforms the A64 3000+ and where the PE 965 outperforms the E6300... woops! :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF:
All right. Stop this meaning less bickering. It's going to lead to ANOTHER Phenom thread closed. Way to go guys.
So correcting FUD and BS is considered meaningless bickering now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
You diverted it from correcting FUD and BS to a flame war. If what he says bothers you, put him on your ignore list. Problem solved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
There is just something about blatant BS that irks me. Ignore list? Nah. Then we'll just have an entire thread full of people like you acknowledging crap like that as 'good points'. Some balance is needed... you know, truth vs FUD... it's a delicate balance. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
What I meant about the "good point" is that early in the life of something, the previous gen can be faster, however slight it may be. Early days of DDR3 vs DDR2 for instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
I know about separating truth from FUD is very important, but if people choose to believe it, then let them believe it. Like I said ignore it, or put the person on your ignore list if they keep doing it.
Actually, the only time a new uArch was slower than the previous one was the P4 vs P3, and it was heavily ridiculed at the time.
I won't go as far as to say that K10 will be slower than K8 at launch, just that it will be a mixed bag depending on the benchmark. K10 does have higher IPC than K8, but is 2.4GHz enough to defeat a 3.2GHz K8 in non heavily threaded benchmarks? I seriously doubt it.
Please name me any other new uArch launch other than Netburst where the old gen was actually faster than the new gen?!
K8 was faster significantly than K7 at launch, K7 was significantly faster than K6, and K6 was a clear leap over K5.
From Intel, every generation since the 8086 has resulted in increased performance, again with the exception of Netburst of course.
Don't forget that the first A64 based s940 chips were previewed they were running at like 1.4, 1.6 ghz. Hopefully this means that next year they will bring up yields and bring us higher clocking chips.
no not really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
why is it that a 30% clock speed increase is so crazy. Opteron scaled from 1.8Ghz to 3.0Ghz after a bit... Phenom very well might have the same potential... let's not forget 45nm as well...
I'm hoping what they're saying is right. There is no reason NOT to hope.
I'll be blunt though
I bet you were one of those people refreshing newegg like mad for the prescott release...
Epsilon84, your tone is completely inappropriate for discussion here at XS. Please tone it down.
That and baiting/flaming is also against the rules...need I remind you.
Who's going to protect the forum from such BS posts ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
Replying in an acid manner to a stupid post isn't well tolerated , but who takes action against the stupid post ?
For the sake of political correctness we're left with BS.Nice way to go.:down:
Noted, the FUD got to me, I apologise. I will try to be more civilised in future. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
given the 60% clockspeed difference... it's not too bad.
Discussion is discussion..If you disagree with a posters point of view then show facts to support your viewpoint..Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
No one takes action against the stupid post as you put it as it is a persons opinion. What is actionable is someone else flaming the person not disagreeing with him.
Now Vapor asked for some courtesy here. Lets have it.
Thanks for reading.
right, tri-core 2GHz K10 vs. dual-core K8 3.2GHz :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dragoran
hence K0 has decent results
The original source corrected themselves and calls it a Phenom 9000 now:
http://myevilprocessor.blogspot.com/
if all the cores are not used then these results are great! stunning if only one core is used
I see only SS
http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/322...6409212_rs.jpg
what was the reason they named tested K10 cpu Phenom 7000 instead of 9000?
I think it was really Phenom 7000 - Toliman triple-core
http://www.expreview.com/img/news/071028/score.png
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=163780
..for the intel fans please refer :) :spam:
yes i know this thread is about k10 vs k8.
and to compare 2.0gigk10 with 3.2ghzk8 cpu is hard to do. why dont they put a 2.0GHz k8 next to the 2.0GHz phenom ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? :nuts: :confused:
Precisely. Specially with tests that are GPU limited for some.Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath