Printable View
It's a cute attempt savantu, but unfortunately for you, they do not use the same far cry 2 benchmark (your link used fraps to benchmarks, which means they could have just tested standing still somewhere), neither do they both use trisli. (your link used the XFX 260GTX)Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Try again.
in vista 32bit 2 gb is most of the time even faster then 4gb. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Tests are done on an Intel platform and results are possible to not have the same impact on AMD systems. Besides, it wasn't just the size of the RAM nor just the Far Cry benchmark. It was speed, size and timings. In the report you linked to it's obvious that other benchmarks are affected with more RAM, and this still doesn't give any reason to use a slower RAM for the AMD system.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
lol give me something i can understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectrobozo
let me get this straight... since you studied math i presume you're using the formula if A > B & B < C, then A > C ?? i hope you're still wid me.. coz im confused right now.. oh wait.. yea i got it.. so now with that formula... you're saying yorkfield > kentsfield & kentsfield > deneb therefore yorkfield > deneb.. that right. am i doing right in maths.. ok now let me ask you a question. please give me a list of reviews that seem fair and matched (according to you) so that I can go compare for myself..Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
What was wrong with the hwbox review?Quote:
Originally Posted by saveus222
Miss Banana...hypothetically let's say that you had Phenom II with 8GB of RAM and 2x 4870x2, and you compared it to i7 with 8GB of RAM and 2x 4870x2 in a Far Cry 2 benchmark. Let's say the i7 whupped the Phenom's ass. I am imagining you quoting my benchmark and saying... "Well the i7 had the x58 chipset and the Phenom had the AMD 790 chipset so you can't compare! Try again!" Certain variables (like chipsets) are impossible to eliminate. Other variables (like 2 vs 4GB of RAM) sometimes just don't make a damn bit of difference in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
You know what, even though AMD and Intel are stuck on different chipsets I did the benchie anyway just for :banana::banana::banana::banana:s and giggles. I did a Far Cry 2 benchmark of a Phenom II system with 8GB of ram and 2x 4870x2 and it totally smoked an equivalently configured i7 clock for clock...but I'm not going to post it because the stars aren't in the right alignment anymore so it's pretty much invalid.
Nah, just kidding.
I mentioned his CONFIGURATION Go back and check; it's like talking to a brick a wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Banana
It's called action and reaction, miss. Since you choose to not see his derogatory remark in the post I replied to, it is silly for you to even pretend to be on to something.Quote:
Calling someone younger than 12, rambling about his dad, calling him pathetic, sig worthy, ignorant and immature.
No, you're the silly one here; trying to defend the indefensible and jumping to conclusions without proof of evidence.Quote:
You surely know how to make yourself look silly.
Hey Zucker, if posts like that upset you so much, maybe you should just join kyle's community? Noone will ever disagree with you there.
Shintai is right:
Courtesy of member, Vozer:
About 1 in 15 of my posts are "QFT" only. If you posted anything close to the to factual, I would have quoted you for truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
Your personal attacks have been reported. No, I'll not attack you back.
Every time you point to price you contradict yourself. The reviews showed that AMD will have to cut prices after the rush of Fans willing to pay current prices. Same thing happened when AM2 launched. Most folks with more than a peanut for a brain waited. Again, forget the past and pay more money.
FS's review was fair, their comments weren't! But thank you for making my point for me. This is the same type of review Kyle did for both Barcelona and 4 x 4.
I compared i7 to Phenom because both are new!
I'm biased for Intel just as you're biased for AMD. Make your point, I'll make mine. While making my point about all of the reviews, I don't need to call you an idiot or whatever else. F Squad showed the same double standard many on this forum show. You can call it changing standards, moving finish line, different degree or whatever. One difference between you and I, I'm consistent. I think i7 costs too much but unlike you, Firingquad's review, duploxx and others, I thought 3800+ cost-ed too much as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by MissBanana
nice shartQuote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
now looking at original specs from test platform they use s775 ddr3 against am2+, anandtech did a full review between ddr2 and ddr3 stating that its a performance difference upto 5% so this brings p2 between kent and york.
no maths needed, shintai is wrong!
right, perhaps we should start reporting the blue fanboys everytime they jurk all amd related threads, i am sure several of you guys would be banned for several months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
that's still about 700 posts of waste on the forum
so next time a new celeron or pentium hits the street we can compare it to a phenom x4 release, since its then also new and its in the same price range difference you are comparing the phenom2 against i7 :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Numbers are true based on this article at Guru3D "Core i7 Multi-GPU SLI Crossfire Game performance review" but THG's review is a better proof because there is a Phenom 9950 in too and we can extrapolate Phenom II numbers with it, just here "Core i7: 4-Way CrossFire, 3-way SLI, Paradise?
".
http://media.bestofmicro.com/1/X/165...l/image021.png
Moreover numbers seeing in HardOCP are impressive but the big picture is clearly inflated because Far Cry 2 is the game where there is the most difference in performance between AMD and Intel. About 20% difference clock for clock where other games show like 5% difference in average.
If a review with Tri Sli, will use UT3, Crysis, COD4 or whatever other game, i7 will still dominate easyly but difference between Deneb and Yorkfield will be much more tiny. The big issue of this review is that using ONE game to draw a conclusion is quite stupid.
Moreover based on Savantu's link, Crysis test on HardOCP is false because between 2GB and 4GB it show that there is 20% difference in framerate at 1280x1024. We can suppose that at 800x600 like on HardOCP Phenom II numbers might be 20% better maybe more.
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Arti..._lowest_64.png
Give it a rest guys and enjoy either the CPU's of the BLUE team or the ones of the GREEN team... I pick whichever performs the best for my needs...Youself pick the one that suits you best (budget, upgradability, fanboy ,...)
I want to see more end user results (read 24/7 OC's) here and nice price drop from both parties...
This thread will become The Never Ending Bickering Story part III beta dorkpack4
From the HardOCP article, which you apparently didn't read:Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images...CiVG5M_4_1.gif
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images...CiVG5M_4_2.gif
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images...CiVG5M_4_3.gif
One last thing about the HardOCP review. ( http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?...50aHVzaWFzdA== )Quote:
Originally Posted by panfist
The problem that arises when you desperately WANT to test the phenom II with tri sli, is that you have to use an nvidia chipset for the AMD system.
So what chipset did kyle use?
In his test setup specs he claims he used the MSI DKA790GX Platinum, which is strange because besides only having two PCI e slots, this motherboard also does not support sli. This means he used a different chipset and screwed up by giving the wrong information in his test setup section, no real surprises there.
Later on he claims he used a MSI K9N2 Diamond, based on the NVIDIA’s 780a chipset. Note that this chipset only supports tri sli in a 16* 8* 8* configuration, while the MB for the intel system (ASUS P6T6) supports a *16 *16 *16 configuration.
If it's not obvious yet, this is where the problems begin. Surely it is not possible to test different platforms with the exact same chipset, but wouldn't it make sense to build configurations that at least have slightly similar specs? Not to kyle.
Back to the chipset used for the AMD system, kyle himself once reviewed the motherboard he is using, so you would think he is aware of the shortcomings right?
Look at this page
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA== and note the winrar performance.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/images...UL2bjB_4_4.gif
Something weird is going on with this nvidia tri sli chipset for AMD cpu's and kyle has the following to say:Now let's look at gaming, again the nvidia motherboard is acting weird by underperforming in every gaming benchmark and then suddenly performing better in a crysis benchmark. Kyle is very surprised:Quote:
Here the performance takes another nose dive. I'm not sure what the deal is with this particular test, but the results are less than stellar. Hopefully this type of problem will be corrected as the drivers for the platform mature. This test is solidly bandwidth limited in our small spectrum of CPUs, but this is just terrible and it was continually repeatable.
In the end of the review kyle has the following to say:Quote:
Again, the behavior of this board in the benchmarks is a bit odd. I am not sure if these odd results are a design issue with the MSI board specifically or a factor of the drivers which will hopefully change over time.
Really kyle? Quite strange you decided to use this board for the phenom review then. I guess you had to since it was the only board that does tri sli on a phenom system? Or was the whole trisli thing an excuse to use this board for the amd platform? Surely not.Quote:
Dan and I had much difference experiences when it comes to the MSI K9N2 Diamond. There is just no way I can suggest using this motherboard after my personal experiences with it.
Obviously this is only the beginning. The nvidia board is mysteriously not working correctly, as kyle discovered, and then (surprise) does not work with 1066 mhz memory. Kyle then decides to give the AMD system half of the memory of the intel system, and uses the GPU's that have substantial bandwidth requirements.
So we have slower memory, less memory, a buggy chipset, and less PCIE lanes for the AMD system. You are right, some variables do not make a difference in the end, but I don't think that is the case here.:rolleyes:
You're very sufficient :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by panfist
Just read my whole post and you will see why Crysis numbers are probably off.
Lost Planet and Quake 4 don't know but why use respectively 2006 and 2005 games to test 2009 processors? :rolleyes:
edit : For Lost Planet HardOCP numbers are low for Phenom II compare to Firingsquad numbers, Phenom must score 100fps not 93fps and if we take into account difference in resolution.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...nce/page10.asp
Sorry Abel, but this is ridiculous! My God, Jesus, Joseph, and Mary!!! You made a mistake and you get straightened and then you start talking about some other nonsense!Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
Let's see the excuses here from the AMD crowd:
Board is defective/8x PCIE Lanes/Not enough PCIE Lanes :shocked: Immature bios
Ram is timings are loose/only 2GB used
The Games tested are too old
i7 is too expensive so the comparison is not fair
QX 9770 is on DDR3 and costs an arm and a leg
Why test with SLI/Why not test on Ati card, AMD will do better
The reviewer is biased/paid/drunk/incompetent/amateur
Etc.
Pathetic! :down:
Where the mistake is?
Those are kyle's words, not mine. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Do we know ram timings? We only know ram size and speed.Quote:
Ram is timings are loose/only 2GB used
Irrelevant.Quote:
The Games tested are too old
Comparison is fair, but usually in a review, price matters yes.Quote:
i7 is too expensive so the comparison is not fair
QX 9770 is on DDR3 and costs an arm and a leg
Noone said test with ati cards. But yes, testing tri sli on this particular chipset is a bit strange.Quote:
Why test with SLI/Why not test on Ati card, AMD will do better
Not drunk, just biased, bitter, hysterical, incompetent, childish, unprofessional, subjective and yes probably paid by someone allthough I wouldn't know the specifics about that.Quote:
The reviewer is biased/paid/drunk/incompetent/amateur
Etc.
Pathetic! :down:
Fortunately there are lots of good quality reviews, and we can close the kyle chapter for once and for all now.
If you think I'm the only one using QFT, you're sadly mistaken. Please also note that I'd already said I was waiting for the AM3 test results and think the 5% is just an average and not across the board. I want to see the AM3 reviews before I pass full judgment. I want to see how and what improves with faster HT and DDR3. Please note, most Blue Fanboys aren't the ones calling me an idiot:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
Again, AMD thread doesn't mean only positive comments and in the case "REVIEWS" allowed. Any comment that can be backed isn't trashing AMD (more than one credible source). There are good and bad reviews.
I'm still not holding a grudge or anything against you. The reviews don't show Phenom II in the best light even against the 2 year old tech. Firingsquad's own tests doesn't jive with the own comments. I keep hearing if you're building a New system.
The old crap matters because i7's current price puts it in the mainstream, NOT you or I. According to Firingsquad it is a "budget-minded enthusiast" product. The review FS did wasn't bad but since when is doing similar or better about 40% of the time a good thing even against the older Intel CPU's? I didn't expect Phenom 2 to be faster than i7. I did expect a BETTER showing against Q9550 and Q9400. Their price cuts next week will mean even more heartburn for AMD.
Testing on that low resolution without filter higher fps values gain when there wasn't any action in the game is just plain stupid. If you use a test on that low resolution to evaluate which processor that is best than you don't know how these processors behave.
Core 2 has a big L2 cache (6MB) with 15 cycles delay.
Phenom II has a smaller L2 cache (512 KB) with 15 cycles delay, L3 cache is 6 MB with close to 40 cycles delay and the L3 cache runs at lower frequency compared to Core 2 so maybe the L2 cache on Core 2 is about 4 or 5 times faster accessing the L2 cache compared to when Phenom access the L3 cache. L3 cache has a lot of advantages running multiple processes etc but just feeding one core with data and the data isn't shared or fragmented then the Core 2 L2 cache is much faster compared to the L3 cache on Phenom.
Games love cache, if there isn't any action in the game the cache will very much decide the speed of the processor. Areas with little activity is much more common in games compared to areas with high activity. If there isn't anything else that slows the processor like a graphic card that needs to redraw a complex picture at high resolutions the Core 2 will gain a LOT of FPS values when there ISN'T any action.
Is this a good measurement for how good the processor is in games? No it isn't.
What you should try to do to really test the processor for how good it is in games is to remove all those areas that isn't important (when there isn't any action), it isn't there the game will lag. And focus on areas where the processor needs to work hard (when there is action in the game).
What Kyle did in his test was to focus on areas that isn't important and used that to conclude how good the processor was. Either he don't understand hardware or he wanted to make AMD look bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by panfist
This thread gets more and more hillarious. Its like watching some alternative universe play out.
L3 cache cycles on hardoc said three less then Barcelona and Barcelona has 49 cycles for l3 cache so it should be 46 cycles for deneb.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
instead of just showing a bar graphic he should should have a bit more games and done a time bench with real game play and lines of fps.
last they're should have been two motherboards used ACC is No use on phenom II so 780A board will be nice choice to see now.
Why because it upsets your concept of reality to find out you're not correct? (I would think you would be used to that.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Funny, alternative version of AMD haters are exactly the same than in our universe :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Doesn't matter if the Intel CPUs are 50 years old if that's what they're currently offering. But still, would have been good for AMD if it performed better. But it's OK, and it doesn't need to be more than that for the time being (people are obviously buying it).
Can't we just agree on that the review is bad and biased for whatever reason (hypes not being fulfilled, Intel-loving, on drugs etc.) and should not be used as a reference for PII performance. Even though the results probably are true (I'm not questioning the numbers), the method used is not good enough to make it useful. Even if the results are close to those others have got, this one has clear flaws that undermines the integrity of the review. When there are 10-20 good reviews out there, why use this one?
The "only" reason for why people find more and more things wrong with the review probably is because some here are so convinced it shows a fair comparison. To persuade those people, more evidence for the "injustice" is brought forward.
We know timings are not same as the frequency isn't, even if the timings are 5-5-5-15 for both, that doesn't mean equal memory performance, right? (Why else would people be buying faster RAMs with looser timings? This goes to answer the question if more RAM is needed too, why have 4GB if 2 is sufficient?)
Could you explain why, after reading my post about the chipset he used, you are not questioning the numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
Just curious here.