AMD Shanghai/Deneb Review Thread

Printable View

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

12-20-2008, 04:42 PM
Oliverda

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghostbuster

Here's a great source for comparison
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles...521&cid=2&pg=8
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles...521&cid=2&pg=9

CPU bound benchmarks on stock clocks...

CineBench 10 32-bit
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 ... 11165
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 ... 10506
Phenom II X4 ................. 9754

3Mark06 CPU score
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 .... 4783
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 .... 4483
Phenom II X4 ................... 4483

Aquamark3 CPU score
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 .... 19129
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 .... 18117
Phenom II X4 ................... 15745

Those Expreview leaked AMD slides are for real after all. ;)

I get around 9500 in Cinebench with my 9950@3GHz. :rolleyes:

Check this:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1228958064

vs.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/n...4358/17765.png

source
12-20-2008, 04:43 PM
informal

^^ What Macadamia said.

BTW check justapost's results at the same clocks/settings and in the same apps here:
http://www.ocxtreme.org/forumenus/sh...&postcount=131 (thanks justapost ;) )

Some very noticeable improvements per clock,north of 12%,except in wprime(dunno what's up with that).Phenom II works on that board although it's not properly supported yet.Note the 1.8Ghz L3 clocks.
Also notice the huge jump in Aquamark CPU score when going from Phenom I to Phenom II :eek: (both at exactly the same settings/clocks-3Ghz/1.8Ghz same memory timings):
Phenom I : 11093
Phenom II: 15745.
That's 41% better score per clock :up: .Seems like a very cache sensitive CPU test.

I would rather focus on Phenom I vs Phenom II results,until the official launch and reviews are out ;). Then we can compare it to Q series and i7 since all will be polished and ready .
12-20-2008, 04:44 PM
noki

Yes but OCW test was with a Radeon HD4850...
12-20-2008, 04:44 PM
roofsniper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashraf

Keep AMD vs Intel discussions or "AMD can't beat Intel" out of this thread.

Please stay on topic.

i would really like to avoid having anything else happen.
12-20-2008, 04:51 PM
Zucker2k

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliverda

I get around 9500 in Cinebench with my 9950@3GHz. :rolleyes:

Well, you're running 64bit Cinebench. Check.
12-20-2008, 05:07 PM
informal

@Ghostbuster

I just checked some Q9xxx 3dmark06 CPU scores at the ORB.It looks like Phenom II and Q9x50 are pretty much even at the same clocks in this test :shrug:
PhII 4Ghz : 5846
Q9550 @4Ghz : 5766 (Phenom wins by a small margin-80pts which is within margin of error-so they are the same per clock)
Q9650 @ 4.05Ghz : 6033 (Q9650 per clock wins by 1.1%,within margin of error).

I say again all these Phenom II previews are just that-previews.We should wait for final reviews with proper bios versions and final platform to make up our mind where it sits exactly vs Q9xxx series.By the looks of the latest info it's quite competitive ,both per clock and in OCing abilities.
12-20-2008, 05:09 PM
Oliverda

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Well, you're running 64bit Cinebench. Check.

Unfortunately I can't run 64bit Cinebench on my 32bit Win XP SP3. :D
12-20-2008, 05:14 PM
Zucker2k

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oliverda

Unfortunately I can't run 64bit Cinebench on my 32bit Win XP SP3. :D

Oh that screenie isn't yours? Post a screenie of your 32bit XP SP3 run. :up:
12-20-2008, 05:15 PM
demonkevy666

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

@Ghostbuster

I just checked some Q9xxx 3dmark06 CPU scores at the ORB.It looks like Phenom II and Q9x50 are pretty much even at the same clocks in this test :shrug:
PhII 4Ghz : 5846
Q9550 @4Ghz : 5766 (Phenom wins by a small margin-80pts which is within margin of error-so they are the same per clock)
Q9650 @ 4.05Ghz : 6033 (Q9650 per clock wins by 1.1%,within margin of error).

I say again all these Phenom II previews are just that-previews.We should wait for final reviews with proper bios versions and final platform to make up our mind where it sits exactly vs Q9xxx series.By the looks of the latest info it's quite competitive ,both per clock and in OCing abilities.

1.8ghz nb lol 1.1% 200mhz Nb/L3 = what like % ? 0.7% ( Idk)
12-20-2008, 05:28 PM
informal

Quote:

Originally Posted by demonkevy666

1.8ghz nb lol 1.1% 200mhz Nb/L3 = what like % ? 0.7% ( Idk)

"Q9650 per clock wins by 1.1%,within margin of error" means that instead of 4.05Ghz ,the score for Q9650 at 4Ghz would be ~5958pts which is 5958/5846=~1.9% better than Phenom II at the same 4Ghz clock (I made a mistake,wrote 1.1% vs 1.9% ;) -still practically the same score). The scaling with clock is 97% for Phenom II,going from 3Ghz to 4Ghz in CPU subtest of 3dmar06.The L3 speed seems to play less of a role here.
12-20-2008, 05:33 PM
Caveman787

The one site with benches supposedly had near perfect scaling with clock throughout there tests.

That might sound odd but AMD did have overclockers in mind when making these chips.
12-20-2008, 05:59 PM
demonkevy666

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

"Q9650 per clock wins by 1.1%,within margin of error" means that instead of 4.05Ghz ,the score for Q9650 at 4Ghz would be ~5958pts which is 5958/5846=~1.9% better than Phenom II at the same 4Ghz clock (I made a mistake,wrote 1.1% vs 1.9% ;) -still practically the same score). The scaling with clock is 97% for Phenom II,going from 3Ghz to 4Ghz in CPU subtest of 3dmar06.The L3 speed seems to play less of a role here.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...x4-9850_4.html

In there 0.40-3% with 200mhz NB. so going up on NB from 1.8...2.6ghz max for AM+...3.2ghz for AM3...
12-20-2008, 06:11 PM
charged3800z24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Oh that screenie isn't yours? Post a screenie of your 32bit XP SP3 run. :up:

well here is my 3.3ghz run on 64bit and 32bit ...system is tweaked a lil and still lower then the Phenom II @ 3.2ghz.
(64)
http://3800z24.info/Phenom/9950/winx...ench64_3.3.JPG
(32)
http://3800z24.info/Phenom/9950/32bi...e_unganged.JPG
12-20-2008, 06:18 PM
Ghostbuster

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

I just checked some Q9xxx 3dmark06 CPU scores at the ORB.It looks like Phenom II and Q9x50 are pretty much even at the same clocks in this test :shrug:
PhII 4Ghz : 5846
Q9550 @4Ghz : 5766 (Phenom wins by a small margin-80pts which is within margin of error-so they are the same per clock)
Q9650 @ 4.05Ghz : 6033 (Q9650 per clock wins by 1.1%,within margin of error).

Yours is slightly flawed because that was on Windows XP 64-bit. The reference 4GHz Phenom was on Windows XP 32-bit. I can find better scores then that, for example Q9550 @ 3.739GHz scores 6013 on Windows XP 32-bit :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

I say again all these Phenom II previews are just that-previews.We should wait for final reviews with proper bios versions and final platform to make up our mind where it sits exactly vs Q9xxx series.By the looks of the latest info it's quite competitive ,both per clock and in OCing abilities.

Anyway, I've made my prediction many moons ago.. As for the finale vs Q9xxx, I've already saw early on that it will be behind Q9550 as all clues are pointing towards that. I compare with stock clocks, and again all results pointing to that conclusion again. Well, now you can predict the pricing... ;)
12-20-2008, 06:28 PM
roofsniper

there are no clues since there are no benchmarks that can be trusted. this entire thing is still up in there air. no one really knows how it will perform against intel cpus but we know its at least better than the first phenom. :D i would like to keep the whole intel thing out of this until official benchmarks are released since it will only start an argument that can't be ended since there is no proof of anything. and you really can't compare benchmarks from different sources together since all the parts aren't the same and the systems are not tweaked the same.
12-20-2008, 06:37 PM
Ghostbuster

Update... Q9550 @4.038GHz CPU score = 6316 on Windows XP 32-bit This is the nearest score I can find, almost the same GPU scores, also its a HD4870... :cool:
12-20-2008, 06:40 PM
AbelJemka

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghostbuster

Yours is slightly flawed because that was on Windows XP 64-bit. The reference 4GHz Phenom was on Windows XP 32-bit. I can find better scores then that, for example Q9550 @ 3.739GHz scores 6013 on Windows XP 32-bit :)

Anyway, I've made my prediction many moons ago.. As for the finale vs Q9xxx, I've already saw early on that it will be behind Q9550 as all clues are pointing towards that. I compare with stock clocks, and again all results pointing to that conclusion again. Well, now you can predict the pricing... ;)

Phenom II already scoring 5846 at 4GHzwith a beta bios on non optimized system (400MHz memory cas 5) is for me on the same range as Q9xxx scoring around 6000 at +3,8GHz :up:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghostbuster

Update... Q9550 @4.038GHz CPU score = 6316 on Windows XP 32-bit This is the nearest score I can find, almost the same GPU scores, also its a HD4870... :cool:

Heavily optmized system versus unoptimized system with beta bios. I don't know what u search to prove?
12-20-2008, 06:43 PM
Ghostbuster

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

Phenom II already scoring 5846 at 4GHzwith a beta bios on non optimized system (400MHz memory cas 5) is for me on the same range as Q9xxx scoring around 6000 at +3,8GHz :up:

Now what's left is how well it can run in air or water cooling in normal setups, then we will see how competitive it can be... :up:
12-20-2008, 06:47 PM
AbelJemka

I see quite a bunch of overclocking with normal setup on aircooling already but i prefer to wait for final review.
12-20-2008, 06:51 PM
Ghostbuster

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

Heavily optmized system versus unoptimized system with beta bios. I don't know what u search to prove?

The 4GHz Phenom II system was using ASUS HD4870 Toxic.. so that is pre-factory overclocked for sure. Thus I look for a similar card (thus similar GPU scores) and a similar clocked Q9550 processor. :)
12-20-2008, 07:41 PM
roofsniper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghostbuster

Now what's left is how well it can run in air or water cooling in normal setups, then we will see how competitive it can be... :up:

there have been plenty of times that it has been on an air or water cooling setup. it is a known fact that it can get 4ghz on air and 6 ghz on ln2 so most of the time when you are seeing a 4ghz phenom II it is on air.
12-20-2008, 08:18 PM
Caveman787

So anybody know how well its gonna perform gaming wise?

Apparantly i7 is better for games then core2 because it gets better minimum framerates.

At one of the events in the video they said the minimum framerates were doubled.

Can anyone verify them being the good?

Like everyone else I can't wait for more benches and details other than ln2 since I'm not gonna be running more than air.
12-20-2008, 08:21 PM
roofsniper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caveman787

So anybody know how well its gonna perform gaming wise?

Apparantly i7 is better for games then core2 because it gets better minimum framerates.

At one of the events in the video they said the minimum framerates were doubled.

Can anyone verify them being the good?

Like everyone else I can't wait for more benches and details other than ln2 since I'm not gonna be running more than air.

well i have always thought that a phenom was smoother for gaming than a core 2 was in the first place even tho the core 2 got higher frame rates. this could be the fact that the phenom keeps the fps being about the same instead of having it go from high to medium and from high to medium. i can't say how it will be for gaming for sure but im sure it will be amazing.
12-20-2008, 11:23 PM
Morais

oh no, not again

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