they compare not GPU 6670 with IGP in SB, but with x6 1100T!Quote:
Originally Posted by Postmodum
A8,A6 (APU Llanos chip) are compare with IGP 2600K!
Printable View
they compare not GPU 6670 with IGP in SB, but with x6 1100T!Quote:
Originally Posted by Postmodum
A8,A6 (APU Llanos chip) are compare with IGP 2600K!
Ok then so let's compare the PCMark increase versus 1100T which is what 37% considering it doesn't scale well with more cores it's still a big increase comparable to Westmere and SNB.
Flank3r... correct, sorry ... my bad ... :D "meh" ehehehe
Wait, wait... Isnt Interlagos a Server product in the first place? Are you comparing a desktop product w/ a server product?Quote:
Originally Posted by hurleybird
Theres so much wrong info in this thread...
Intel at least initially doesnt plan on introducing 8 core for the desktop s2011.
AMD does not have ANY AT ALL plans for mcm desktop system.
Anyhow.Pc mark vantage totally sucks as a cpu benchmark.Look at the x4 vs x6.
As for the PCmark, this is what it tests.I dont think Gpu used makes much of a difference:
Quote:
PCMark Suite
The PCMark Suite is a collection of various tests designed to represent common everyday PC usage. The PCMark score is the direct result of the PCMark Suite test.
PCMark Consumer Scenarios
* Digital Memories 1 & 2
* TV and Movies 1 & 2
* Gaming 1 & 2
* Music 1 & 2
* Communication 1 & 2
* Productivity 1 & 2
CPU Tests
* Data encryption, decryption, compression and decompression
* CPU image manipulation (compression / decompression / resize / flipping)
* Audio transcoding
* Video transcoding
* Text editing
* Web page rendering
* Windows Mail
* Windows Contacts
* CPU game test
Graphics Tests
* Video playback
* GPU game test
HDD Tests
* 6 seperate HDD tests
that would be interesting if someone tests with PCmark vantage, and then tests again but with a heavy underclock on the GPU to see how much the scores are affected by the video card.
anyone remember when a review of the iodrive pcie ssd was done, and pcmark scores were record breaking for the total bench because of how fast the hard drive was?
THX for the pic. I can only reach a conclusion that PCMark doesn't support more than four threads according to these odd scores.:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by XRL8
Considering more variant, maybe PCMark not only can hold less-thread bench(such as single threading), but also more-thread bench?
http://i.neoseeker.com/a/amd_pii_107...970/pcmark.png
well, dual-channel is more than enough for now. of cause there will be some benches that profit, but for u as a consumer it wont matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
I hope it's not true because Llano looks very disappointing.
A8 is just a 32nm Phenom II clocked below 3 GHzQuote:
Originally Posted by clayton
Clayton: lol?! are u serious?! Llano is mainstream product, balanced for everyday working and fun. Look at APU-GPU!!! Fuc*ng better than GPU in 2600k! Or do u think, some John from 90% population of peope, every day transcoding videos or rendering in Maxon Studio etc?:D
I was expecting better performances for laptop use. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Its targeted at mainstream day to day tasks, which arent cpu intensive that much, its NOT a DTR segment, thats sandy and probably mobile bulldozer with discrete gfx.Quote:
Originally Posted by clayton
Guys, guys, why don't you go look at the PC Mark whitepaper, it explains a lot.
The whole suite is a set of 12 benchmarks, final score is a geometric mean of them, so each is valued equally. Most of them depend on the whole system: CPU, GPU, HDD, and little bit of Memory subsystem. It's not a good indicator of CPU performance for power users, it's from 2007 and targeted for Vista. Uses only SSE2, no AES extensions etc.
Only one test that can make use of up to 16 cores - the PC gaming 2 test (doesn't use the GPU at all). The other tests consist of doing between one and four simultanous tasks. Sometimes a task can use two cores if available, but overall there seem to be only two tests that use four or more cores, Productivity 2 (four tasks at once) and gaming 2 (up to 16 cores).
GPU is mostly use for video transcoding stuff, so shouldn't give a big advantage, when SB has it on board connected via fast L3 cache. There is one gaming test, on the same engine as 3dMark06. But the estimated GFX load is the same as for the productivity test 1 - text editing. (wtf) So I don't know if it makes that a huge difference. HDD takes 50% of the workload in 4 out of the 12 tests, so go figure.
Bottom line is, if I didn't miss something, then this is a mildly threaded benchmark overall. If BD can keep up with SB here, then it will be a winner in more CPU orientated benches.
Hey I just ran pcmark vantage for the first time and got 20761 and 33879 for hdd.Did I do something wrong or is this normal with a gtx 560 video card
If its anything like 3dmark - they may be a performance mode and extreme mode (though I dont really know as I've never used it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Skratch
The point scale is usually much lower on extreme mode.
It's pretty much a fact that no matter how good or bad Bulldozer is, it will be priced exactly correctly to compete with Intel. The question we don't know is how far up Intel's range can it reach? Can it match the 2600K, can it match the 980X?
After that AMD will just price it so you get the normal slight advantage with AMD over Intel, and in the mainstream area people would be best buying AMD with discrete graphics, because it's more likely to have a bit of extra headroom for overclocking (Unless you buy the right stuff you can forget overclocking with Intel).
What matters to us is if AMD can get the performance crown from Intel, but we need to be sure we're not deluding ourselves into thinking it really matters to the world at large. All that matters is how cheaply AMD can make chips that match price/performance Intel's offerings. The cheaper they can do it the more money they'll make.
Well AMD knows how Zambezi performs relative to competition,that's for sure.
eheheh ... that's better be true informal ;) eheheh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats
You make very valid points and all are true.
This leads me to believe, there is no pleasing everyone, its impossible.
Especially in such a hyper competitive and performance based community, someone will always find fault in something..especially when its about a company launching a very long awaited/hyped product.
Just posted this in the AMD section:
http://techreport.com/discussions.x/20886
if these graphs are to be believed, the top-flight BD looks to be competitive with at least the 2600K in PCmark [cause, you know, it's the end-all be-all of how we use our PCs :rolleyes:]
PCMark measures graphics as well...Quote:
Originally Posted by hieuhef
That system has a 6670 so there's an advantage on the AMD machine...looks like they chose that to offset the CPU difference.
Don't look at the graphics part of the graph......Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2