AMD Shanghai/Deneb Review Thread

Printable View

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

12-18-2008, 04:58 AM
Ghostbuster

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajaidev

The reviewer used this as the i7 bases :-

http://my.ocworkbench.com/2008...yte/GA-EX58-UD5/b2.htm

You got your link incorrectly copied over. ;) Anyway, from what I saw, I think one of those weird scores is because of the drivers used. The i7 and QX9770 used an earlier driver which may have affected the GPU score (and also Futuremark "optimizations"). However I'd still say the score is too low for most of the benches, even with the latest drivers. Waiting for more reliable numbers to appear soon (already made some prediction). ;)
12-18-2008, 07:32 AM
CntdwnToExtn

quick question

i've read the NDA ends on Dec 20, saturday?
does that mean dec 20th 12:00am china time? which would mean 19th @ noon here since it's a 12 hour difference?
12-18-2008, 07:33 AM
ajaidev

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghostbuster

You got your link incorrectly copied over. ;) Anyway, from what I saw, I think one of those weird scores is because of the drivers used. The i7 and QX9770 used an earlier driver which may have affected the GPU score (and also Futuremark "optimizations"). However I'd still say the score is too low for most of the benches, even with the latest drivers. Waiting for more reliable numbers to appear soon (already made some prediction). ;)

Sorry this is the correct link:-

http://my.ocworkbench.com/2008/gigab...X58-UD5/b2.htm :yepp:
12-18-2008, 07:37 AM
ajaidev

Quote:

Originally Posted by CntdwnToExtn

quick question

i've read the NDA ends on Dec 20, saturday?
does that mean dec 20th 12:00am china time? which would mean 19th @ noon here since it's a 12 hour difference?

mAybe 12.00am Canada time...!! :p:
12-18-2008, 08:11 AM
LowRun

Where does that Dec 20th NDA off came from? The most reliable site here told us to come back Jan 8th for their review.
12-18-2008, 10:38 AM
roofsniper

Quote:

Originally Posted by LowRun

Where does that Dec 20th NDA off came from? The most reliable site here told us to come back Jan 8th for their review.

idk but everyone is saying it so im just guessing that it is true.
12-18-2008, 11:58 AM
BertM

i contacted 2 stores in holland, both didnt know about the 20th december and 1 sad today that it will be available beginning of januari.
12-18-2008, 12:18 PM
CntdwnToExtn

Quote:

Originally Posted by LowRun

Where does that Dec 20th NDA off came from? The most reliable site here told us to come back Jan 8th for their review.

hench my question mark on my post.

but on page 19 of this thread, Throwed mentioned about not respecting the NDA with the benches posted and thought it wasn't lifted until Friday.
SOF then quoted him quite annoyed because he wanted to show his benches but couldn't.

he didn't correct him about the date, so i figured it was 19th/20th for the NDA?
12-18-2008, 03:34 PM
LowRun

Looks like a rumor mill production :shrug:
12-18-2008, 04:27 PM
Macadamia

Quote:

Originally Posted by LowRun

Where does that Dec 20th NDA off came from? The most reliable site here told us to come back Jan 8th for their review.

Initialised/CyberpowerPC :)
12-18-2008, 11:57 PM
FlanK3r

i found this, i mean, its not from Chicago or diferent presentation...
http://bbs.chiphell.com/attachments/...4B0vamd7VO.jpg
12-19-2008, 12:21 AM
Lastviking

Quote:

Originally Posted by amdcian

And this is a Intel Penryn's WR http://www10.ttvnol.com/forum/images..._smile_big.gif

http://valid.canardpc.com/cache/screenshot/438491.png

And thats is with a ES also :yepp:
12-19-2008, 02:28 AM
QuietIce

Quote:

Originally Posted by amdcian

And this is a Intel Penryn's WR

Looks like another ID10T error ...
12-19-2008, 02:34 AM
Throwed

Quote:

Originally Posted by amdcian

And this is a Intel Penryn's WR

The intel dumbasses never let up. THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT CORE 2 QUAD! I hope the admins keep a eye on IP's around here.
12-19-2008, 03:11 AM
gallag

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuietIce

Looks like another ID10T error ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Throwed

The intel dumbasses never let up. THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT CORE 2 QUAD! I hope the admins keep a eye on IP's around here.

I assume he posted that to show that AMD now holds the highest oc on quad, But don't let that stop you guys from jumping on him and defending AMD:ROTF:
12-19-2008, 04:15 AM
Astennu

Indeed i think he posted it for the clocks. Nice that AMD beated that. I wonder what we will see in the future 6,5-6,7 GHz maybe ?
12-19-2008, 04:18 AM
Lastviking

Quote:

Originally Posted by gallag

I assume he posted that to show that AMD now holds the highest oc on quad, But don't let that stop you guys from jumping on him and defending AMD:ROTF:

+1 :yepp:
12-19-2008, 05:26 AM
informal

Quote:

Originally Posted by gallag

I assume he posted that to show that AMD now holds the highest oc on quad, But don't let that stop you guys from jumping on him and defending AMD:ROTF:

That was my impression too,but i can't see his original post anymore.
Anyway,the Penryn OC he posted was done with only 1 core with ES.Oktabit fellows did it on a retail chip across all four cores,on a modded board.And they verified no CB :yepp:
12-19-2008, 06:20 AM
biohead

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlanK3r

i found this, i mean, its not from Chicago or diferent presentation...
http://bbs.chiphell.com/attachments/...4B0vamd7VO.jpg

Rated FSB? It should say HT Link. Fake?
12-19-2008, 06:52 AM
QuietIce

Quote:

Originally Posted by gallag

I assume he posted that to show that AMD now holds the highest oc on quad, But don't let that stop you guys from jumping on him and defending AMD:ROTF:

It's not a matter of "defending" AMD but this thread has been full of Intel spin and, quite frankly, I'm sick of seeing it. There are plenty of threads (or if there isn't anybody can make their own) comparing AMD and Intel.

But, yea, maybe I jumped the gun a little. At 0500 I still hadn't had my first cup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by biohead

Rated FSB? It should say HT Link. Fake?

A quirk of the Phenom II?
*goes off to find more Deneb CPU-Z posts*

Yep - Phenom II quirk ...
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=426
12-19-2008, 07:06 AM
Zucker2k

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuietIce

It's not a matter of "defending" AMD but this thread has been full of Intel spin and, quite frankly, I'm sick of seeing it. There are plenty of threads (or if there isn't anybody can make their own) comparing AMD and Intel.

But, yea, maybe I jumped the gun a little. At 0500 I still hadn't had my first cup.
A quirk of the Phenom II?
*goes off to find more Deneb CPU-Z posts*

Yep - Phenom II quirk ...
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=426

And that's a cpu-z version 1.48. Maybe just trace your steps a few pages back and you'll have your answer. The truth is not hard to find, if you put some effort into it. :shakes:
12-19-2008, 07:16 AM
Calmatory

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuietIce

It's not a matter of "defending" AMD but this thread has been full of Intel spin and, quite frankly, I'm sick of seeing it. There are plenty of threads (or if there isn't anybody can make their own) comparing AMD and Intel.

But, yea, maybe I jumped the gun a little. At 0500 I still hadn't had my first cup.
A quirk of the Phenom II?
*goes off to find more Deneb CPU-Z posts*

Yep - Phenom II quirk ...
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=426

No.

CPU-Z validator which generates the static image has only rated FSB, however the actual CPU-Z client has HT Link for AMD AM2 processors. That Chiphell screenshot shows the CPU-Z client, which shows Rated FSB instead of HT Link - what it should show.

That could mean that the pic was taken with Intel CPU and then just shopped it as a Deneb CPU-Z screenie. Most certainly a fake, considering that vCore is lower than 1.9 V
and Sampsa & others claim/were told that 1.95 V is needed for 6 GHz.
12-19-2008, 07:58 AM
CntdwnToExtn

1 Attachment(s)

is this something too? the dot in the specification name?
or am i just :shrug:
12-19-2008, 08:42 AM
biohead

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuietIce

So you both think it's fake because of the "Rated FSB" label or am I reading your post wrong? I posted a link to another post which has TWO shots with the same label - I guess you thought they were fakes as well??? :rolleyes:

Here, I'll post it again and put arrows on it ...

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv vvv

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

READ:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calmatory

No.

CPU-Z validator which generates the static image has only rated FSB, however the actual CPU-Z client has HT Link for AMD AM2 processors. That Chiphell screenshot shows the CPU-Z client, which shows Rated FSB instead of HT Link - what it should show.

That could mean that the pic was taken with Intel CPU and then just shopped it as a Deneb CPU-Z screenie. Most certainly a fake, considering that vCore is lower than 1.9 V
and Sampsa & others claim/were told that 1.95 V is needed for 6 GHz.

Those two "shots" are CPU-Z validation shots, not actual shots of the program running.
12-19-2008, 08:45 AM
Calmatory

Quote:

Originally Posted by biohead

READ:

Those two "shots" are CPU-Z validation shots, not actual shots of the program running.

My point exactly. Thank you. :)

Phenom has not beaten Core2Quad, period.

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