Thank you, that's all I needed to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
The CPU would be worth the $250 to me had they figured that rather important bit out. Nor would the CPU be portrayed as sucking so badly.
Yeah, at least I would think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baam
I'd say quite a bit better, near i3 2100 level at stock? (Not trolling here, just looking at real data)
Providing the game can not make the use and or benefit from more than 4 threads yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baam
good info,its just a shame to have to buy a FX-8150 and run it as a quad-core to get the performance out of it.
if i can afford it i will do it though,i had planed on a FX-4170 but that wouldn't be a good idea using the disabling
of the b clusters,then i would only have a dual core:Dmaybe i will win a FX-8150 i have netered several contests:D
Why is it a shame to run it at it's native core count ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by radaja
it's a 4 core with cmt, your just disabling 50% of CMT
Would be real interesting to see some comparison of deneb 4C vs Zambezi 4CU/4C @ same clocks :)
Single Thread performance is really important in a desktop environment, thats why.Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
I really would have liked to see the 12 core Interlagos dies go as 6 core desktop parts minus the CMT @ 4.2 stock but that will never happen and it is much too late for that. Then there would be the argument of "that wouldn't be efficient due to CMT"...
Though power consumption would be down much more so than if CMT was enabled. That would give the strong single thread perf needed as well as multi-thread, or maybe they could just figure out how to disable the shared resources correctly...
+1 for testing 4CU/4C in gaming.
+2Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
so far this has been the best review ive seen.
i want to see MM's wcg numbers also if he would come out of his hole.
agreed, testing more single thread softwares and some gaming would be interesting,Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
4m/4t vs 4m/8t,
hmm interesting...this needs to be tested more, disabling a combination of cluster units and threads in bios and how it performs....
just curious how it performs vs phenom I 9850/9950 vs phenom II
how much did Phenom II increase over Phenom I? was it the 10-15% AMD is talking about with Piledriver?
PI to PII was near identical except extra L3 i thought, so scaling was better and it clocked better, but IPC i think was very closeQuote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
Very, very interesting.
Can you please run low threaded applications (like games) on it, please?
O_o http://www.anandtech.com/show/2702/9 blast from the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
ah, finally someone does something above and beyond the rest of the pack :D
Which BIOS version are you using now to gain access to the individual core control? I'm running 0813 and don't seem to have it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DGLee
If it increases the OC ceiling and decreases power consumption it will indeed be very interesting.
I hope future derivatives can greatly reduce the performance hit of sharing the resources. Thats what seems to hold BD back at the moment
A test with the dolphin emulator vs PII will make my day.
Awesome tiny review ;)
This is a great great test. Maybe what chew* says is right. Shut down the extra cores and run it as a quad, for lower power and better single thread performance?
Would you also run super pi using the same method...curious to see the result. Also if you can add the specs of what you are running, I dont mind running a 1090t against those results.
Im about to pull the trigger on the 8120 and 990FXA-UD3. Does anyone know for sure if it has individual core locking like this?
http://www.hardware.fr/medias/photos...IMG0033832.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Source : http://www.hardware.fr/articles/842-...acite-cmt.html (in french, sorry)
thanks,Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc HFR
I think this shows that CMT works quite well (considering how well the 2m with CMT looks against 4m without CMT), and the benefit of disabling CMT gives a limited improvement in some cases, I don't think it worth loosing the extra 4 cores for this gain,
and this is going to be slightly improved on Windows 8 anyway, I think
It's interesting to see the effect on single threaded benchmarks, like cinebench and superpi when cluster B is disable for comparison.
many of the games tested use less than 4 cores, so it's already a very good indicative,Quote:
Originally Posted by The Coolest
how about l3 latency result, do they improve using 4cu/4t or they still look slow?
Maybe need to patch for running core priority.
Now : Core 0 --> Core 1 --> Core 2 --> Core 3 --> Core 4 --> Core 5 --> Core 6 --> Core 7
Right priority : Core 0 --> Core 2 --> Core 4 --> Core 6 --> Core 1 --> Core 3 --> Core 5 --> Core 7
CMIIW :)