I'd be amazed if anyone at Intel would allow this to continue if they saw it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
Printable View
I'd be amazed if anyone at Intel would allow this to continue if they saw it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
I'm the best overclocker there is. I am the best person there is. I am responsible for the success of a next generation chip. I should be president. And I approve this message.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Yup, that's not obnoxious.
You heard the man:Quote:
Originally Posted by taurus_sel
My guess is that they know about him posting but they haven't read anything that he has written ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Noted. Drwho? definitely lost some of my respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
I would agree with this sentiment 90% of the time, but it sounds like Drwho? is indeed acting disreputably. If the mods let Shadowmage bring up such information, they must feel strongly about it. My :2cents:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
I for one am glad that DrWho posts here. The more industry insiders who come to XS the better as far as I'm concerned.
At the same time I firmly believe he should be held accountable for the things that he says and shouldn't be "off-limits" to
argue with just because he is somewhat of a V.I.P. if you will.
I'm glad the mods aren't going deletion happy and that the discussion hasn't degraded into too much ad hominem.
As for Phenom II, I am ecstatic that it looks good. Even though I probably won't purchase one anytime too soon, all the top
OCers doing everything with Intel only is getting boring. I want to read about some insane AMD overclocks on XS once more. :up: :D
Are we all getting free Foxconn Renaissance/Bloodrage boards?:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Trooper
We've lost enough good people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
Im sure DrWho posted some nice and usefull information somewhere, but from his posting style he shouldnt be around in AMD threads much. He'd better show off some nice i7 tweaking guides etc in Intel section, then he's usefull, not bragging about Intel in AMD threads with stupid assumptions:rolleyes:
Lets give it a rest, hope he reads it though:up:
... @ 4GHz+ ... air cooled...
Stock 9950 heat sink:confused::shocked:Quote:
on air cooling... ( Phenom 9950 cooler)
... and stable...;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
Very nice mate...
Phenom II is giving me a chubby!!
QFT, but hey, he is french, so what do you expectQuote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
why is the voltage blacked out?Quote:
Originally Posted by dread77
Most probably at AMD's request, because most of the noobie idiot overclockers think vCore is one and the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiridum
i.e, 1.5v for Deneb and suddenly it's unsafe. Despite being coolable on stock. :rofl:
When AMD have something good then they will show it public!
Only a MORON would show something not so good in public.
If its sux then you create hype instead, its all about getting money!
This is the way AMD works and it never fails and you know that.
But people "love" amd so much cuz they are smaller then Intel and can fool pretty much anyone with this nonsense.
Looks like a religion to me.
You get fooled and you get angry but one year later you forgotten that and this time they sure is no BS and you help with the hype again just to get fooled again, and you do this over and over and over and over again.
It looks so damn stupid!
Can you understand why people leave AMD and go to Intel ? Not only for speed but you know what you get.
1 month to release so this product is done and can be put in any system and showed worldwide and let any OC have fun with it to get everyone to change their plans and get awful lots of cash from investors.
BUT you got one corner from a tiny little screenshot instead.
Its to damn easy to fool people this days..
Yep indeed. I can already see some of the comments about Vcore needed for 4Ghz,since intel CPUs will degrade at those :" OMGBBQWTFBURNZ 1.6V thermonukelar :p: meltdown" . But 1.6V ,as you said,is coolable on stock cooling and 18% (eighteen percent) over stock, which is 1.35V.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
45nm SOI in AMD's version of the process ,as things look right now,will be quite competitive.I expect that 32nm SOI for high perf. chips continue down this road.
Bold part is my candidate for "post" of the month.Priceless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermann
The rest of the post(unquoted) has similar "value".Same as the avatar of sinking AMD "titanic". Unbiased and right on the money :rolleyes:.
*gets out the popcorn*
Tell us, you just look the first post and stop reading after...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermann
+1 priceless post of the month :rofl:
Core i7's static PMOS is quite voltage tolerant too, just that it didn't matter that much probably because the uncore section is a powerhog anyway.
Lostcircuits measured it I think and got 44W for the uncore alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Trooper
I don't see why industry reps need such kid-gloves? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vapor
I mean, when people argue all over these forums mods don't step in unless it gets really testy, but why does everybody need to walk on eggshells when it's drwho??? Even review sites take pains to emphasize that their editorial content is independent of any manufacturer, so why would a mere discussion forum go out of its way to self-censor criticism of drwho? Why do people get banned for exuberance when talking to this fellow? Why do we need to be afraid of speaking freely when an Intel marketing guy joins a thread?
Go ahead and ban me, plenty of people have left xtremesystems in disgust already.
Hahaha, wtf dude., take it easy on the meths;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermann
And what about HD4xxx series Einstein? They didnt show much more context pre-launch about that product then they do with PhII now.
And to be honest, you dont seem to understand why there's also people not going to Intel but sticking with AMD. Ever tried to look at it that way? We dont love AMD because they're cute and small, otherwise we'd be with VIA:rolleyes:
And Ive yet to discover anything from AMD which made me feel fooled really. Their statements about how great Phenom was pre-launch wasnt exactly true, but for the rest? I mean, I bought Phenom like a lot of other people did when B3 came out. There were loads of reviews out by then and everyone knew what to expect in terms of performance...
What the hell is your point anyway:confused:
PS if it was a religion I wouldnt be a part of it;)
I read their i7 Power Plays article.The article is quite an eye opener since they concluded that total chip power draw is near 204W(that's including uncore part).205W-210 for a stock 965EE with turned-off over-current protection is a lot,and there needs to be a change how review sites measure power draw from now on,since methods used up until now can't be applied to core i7 anymore since "the entire Uncore is uncoupled from the CPU’s main power supply coming in through the auxiliary 12V rail".Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
@Ubermann... Man, you are SOOO wrong. AMD came in public right from the first minute. AMD held 4 major o/c events OPEN to public participation and circulated several samples to prove that Austin rumours were true 100%.
I have never benched an AMD processor, simply because it didn't worth it. Well, with 940 most definitely I am getting myself a PhenomII rig.:up:
Hateboys are so clever ... poor guy ... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiridum
I'm itching to get back to AMD so badly!
I've always tried to tell myself I don't care, I buy what's the best at the time, well I should have gotten i7 then once it was out.
But I want a Phenom II so badly, actually selling a system I only recently put together, I want it now!
They didn't conclude anything, they merely calculated using essentially worst-case figures. And from total system power measurements in reviews (and Lost Circuit's own measurements of the core power usage), i7 clearly does not use 200W.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
They didnt measure anything. They took max values and made a dumb conclusion from that. Its abit like saying a 230V/10A outlet always pumps out 2300W nomatter what you plug in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//i...1&limitstart=3
A quick IP search on you shows that you have been banned twice before for the same antagonistic behavior.
You dont have to walk on eggshells but showing respect is to be expected.
As far as people leaving, its just you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergundy
indeed, they even mention in there articel themself, that intel said no commercial available software is able to utilize all parts of the cpu at once, so that 210W figure is just a (fictive) worse case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
It would be the same if they would use the AMD Max power specs.
I/O is rated at ~7W, NB somewhere around 23W and the highest IDDmax i have seen is 106A, but amd reated every TDP segemt on its own, intel on the other hand only lists the max possible for the whole family.
So if you take the worse cases:
30W uncore part
106A*1,25V=132.5W
--------------------------
162.5W at a max frequency of 2.6ghz
add a higher frequency and amd would be in the same range as intel.... worse case figures are useless.
In best case it's only 0W:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
time for the banhammer lol:D
though, there have been far more worse than him :mad:
b TT
i want my pII, desperately *jikes*
4ghz is enough for me (and very good idle power consumptions):up:
badly ported games, the time of your stuttering will end :yepp: (at least for a short while:()
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
Yeah that's why I meant in fact, I can see that some AM2+ users will get some new life... I just hope it performs... sadly for AMD not many high performance Intel S775 users will jump on Phenom II ( unless they got some more nice surprises in the sleeve )Quote:
Originally Posted by Utnorris
Let's hope that AMD puts the CPU's out at very competitive prices... as many might still be tempted to use S775.
Looking from my point of view (hardware wise) I just might replace the Striker to mess with one of these... just to have something new
Will there be much gain with AM3 over AM2+ ( I lost track of AMD innovations long time ago) performance wise ?
Amd promised a 3-5% gain with the switch to DDR3 form DDR2, but tbh i dont belive this. We didn't saw any appreciable increasments from DDR to DDR2, on intel it was even worse from DDR2 to DDR3. Bandwidth playes an underpart for Desktop apps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
wow this thread is going off lol
i look forward to testing some of this gear soon with results published after NDA expires of course
outch!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
i really hope that you guys dont chase away Francois off XS as he is a real character heheh
more cores = more bandwidth needed, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
because each core is fighting for it
We don't want to chase him away, but his childish appearance and style are annoying most of the time, especially with this olympic spirit joke as i pointed out earlierQuote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
I can link more than a dozen posts from Francois which have been more than helpful regarding Intel CPUs. So, I do not think that anyone from the community would like to chase him away from XS.
He is an Intel executive and he is payed to support his own work and efforts. That's all he has been doing.:up:
This is a PhenomII thread, so let's stick to that guys.:yepp:
This is a PhenmII thread, so let's keep the arrogant frenchman off from here.Quote:
Originally Posted by dread77
Your mixing up intercore bandwidth with memory bandwidth... and for what do they need to fight?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiridum
For 95% of desktop apps a C2 with a "antique " fsb is enough. The only desktop apps that benefit for massive memory bandwidth are file archivers and encryption.
Ah that way. Yeah, AMD platform is cheaper, but it ain't if you move from a skt 775 just for Deneb and get the same performance:yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
I dont know really. 5% is quite a bit of a jump. However, did AMD said this or FUD?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Anyway, I dont think it's comparable to Intel's move from DDR2 to DDR3. There's a reason i7 uses QPI;)
well let's assume a cpu has 10GB/s of bandwidth available, so each core (on average) has 2.5GB/s in mulithreaded apps, i this enough to feed the core with data?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Thats very unlikely. Plus there is the caches to remove external bandwidth demand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiridum
LOL is about all I can say......
All this bickering, if you want more validation there will be others from Extreme attending the Chicago and NY events....as far as the 'cherry picking' goes, who knows for sure (wink, wink).....I only reported what was disclosed at the event.....even though I was impressed, just like many have said here, when the cpu's hit the street, that is when the real truth will be known, until then................whatever.....
And, whether Intel or AMD is putting on an event like this, don't you think they would make sure that they didn't have a dog performer in da house, LOL, jeesh...take everything with small grains of salt....
What thoruoughly impressed me is the PhenomII clocking link contained in this thread showing a SB600 chipset MB (DDR2), 4.1+gig on air, making a switchover as simple as swaping cpu's and making sure the bios is righteous for 45nm.....
It will happen soon enough, I am too stupid to make things up, and lack the technical savy to keep up with the super geeks here....
but I am a clocker through and through and tried to report stuffs as I saw them, no puffing added except for some personal stash, LOL...:hump:
Clock on you freaks.....
laterzzzzzz.................
:ROTF: You know them well!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermann
Phenom II will get AMD back in the Game. The problem is that if it is only good, when most fans are over hyping it as GREAT, it looks like Phenom II failed or didn't live up to something. Something that Phenom II shouldn't have been in the first place. This forum isn't Intel biased and just because AMD and or Phenom II is mentioned in the NEWS Section, doesn't mean only Positive News or Propaganda is allowed. Same goes for Intel. If you guys want only good touchy feely things about Phenom II, there's a sub forum for such stuff:up:
Dr. Who isn't the only Intel and employee here, no I'am NOT one LOL!
One day in Dec-05 I came here and the News section a 32 visitors. The Intel section had 13 visitors and the AMD section had 233. Most days that's what this forum looked like. Conroe changed that and it is not impossible for Phenom II it to change again. When or if AMD regains enthusiasts attention, MOST of us will buy from them again BTW, the forum will reflect it. That's a true comeback and not a made up one by informal, rammsteiner and other AMD fans (to him AMD is always #1:rofl:).
I, just me, thinks folks feeling many here should be loyal no matter what are sadly mistaken. I like AMD but wouldn't piss on their fans to put them out if they were on fire. I could buy 20 Phenom IIs and that *view wouldn't change.
There is a couple of interesting aspects to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
1.What Intel does on Penryn pricing.
2.The pricing and competitiveness of Lynnefield
I agree that Phenom II should help AMD out, but I wonder by how much and for how long?
Do AMD have anything to go head to head with Lynnefield in H2 09?
I thought they had Istanbul planned for late 09, or has that changed? I haven't kept up to date with the ever evolving roadmaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
Is Istanbul the 6 core CPU?Quote:
Originally Posted by ryboto
That would help them in server, but not do a lot for desktop.
Well, they've got a lot of desktop variants planned around K10, there's two types of tri-cores, two types of quad cores, and then there's dual cores. I don't know much about Lynnefield, or how competitive it will be in the value/mainstream market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
That's correct.It could change though,but Istanbul should be Q3/Q4 2009.Quote:
Originally Posted by ryboto
I was sort of wondering when they left. Although K10 didnt do as good as C2 numbers wise, the move from K8 to K10 was one huge improvement over the tweaking options and this was one thing where C2 just sucked at. But obviously that ain't a legit argument by certain people on this forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Well, not my loss really:rolleyes:
So you're listening to overhyping posts then? Oh man, ironic:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Besides that, I remember this time, like a few months ago, about some new platform which got overhyped pretty hard. Weird thing is, that seems to be a non-issue at all then. But hey, must be because as you said 'This forum isn't Intel biased'. But well, some people obviously are which is up to them, I have no problems with that really:rolleyes:
LOL! You wish:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Excuse me? A made up comeback? It almost sounds like that funny tale about green blood:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Also your selective memory seems to forget I had like a 1200 Euro i7 system almost on my doorstep 2 weeks ago. But I understand what I did wrong then, I should have ordered a 965EE instead:shrug:
You mean I'd rather die in a fire then have you to come save me, dont turn it around:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
What would Lynnfield bring to the desktop then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
On the other hand, now that Deneb has made the IPC gap closer to Yorkfield, the E8XXX is going to have a hard time. AMD's new X3s are not like their old (more or less) pathetic attempts. This time it's much stronger (in terms of IPC and clock), priced probably rightly, and even has an enthusiast oriented version to butt heads with the E8600, which it will be cheaper against.
The E7XXX is a tough one to handle. It has only 3MB of cache (which does take away some % of performance), but AMD's K10.5 dualcore has no L3, just 2*1MB of L2 (at least this is fast).
E7400's the top model now. 2.8Ghz. AMD probably can counter with a 3Ghz dual core SKU. If Intel goes to E7500, AMD just needs to shift to 3.2. Nowadays on 45nm, they no longer have any big difficulties to not go aggressive on dual core stock clocks, which will be what most OEMs will use.
E5XXX is an easy sweep. Again, dual core K10.5 speedbinned.
Cheaper motherboards for one, cheaper CPU, and maybe even higher clockspeeds(but that is just a possibility, Intel has been quite coy on clockspeeds for Lynnfield)Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
What clockspeeds will they be released at?Quote:
On the other hand, now that Deneb has made the IPC gap closer to Yorkfield, the E8XXX is going to have a hard time. AMD's new X3s are not like their old (more or less) pathetic attempts. This time it's much stronger (in terms of IPC and clock), priced probably rightly, and even has an enthusiast oriented version to butt heads with the E8600, which it will be cheaper against.
You will love this response, but with the way they ignored Dual Core with K10, I remain somewhat sceptical about their Dual Core offerings with K10.5, I would like to see something a bit more concrete.Quote:
E7400's the top model now. 2.8Ghz. AMD probably can counter with a 3Ghz dual core SKU. If Intel goes to E7500, AMD just needs to shift to 3.2. Nowadays on 45nm, they no longer have any big difficulties to not go aggressive on dual core stock clocks, which will be what most OEMs will use.
E5XXX is an easy sweep. Again, dual core K10.5 speedbinned.
Additionally they may be up against the Dual Core variant of Nehalem.
Talking about pricing strategy, while indeed AMD will try to build some good foundation after some stretch of bad time for them, i don't think price war is in their plan. They don't have the competitiveness to wage it, correct ? Regarding die size, how an AMD quadcore, triple, and dual core compared to Intel's counterparts ? This is very different compared to RV770 vs GT200 duel case, IMHO. Sorry if it's OOT, atleast this is not a flame bait post, just trying to broaden the discussion in a useful manner.
The only way AMD is going to be competitive against Intel is to bring a superior product to the market; damn, some of you guys are too forgiving. At best, AMD is going to maintain its current market share, at worst, Intel is going to hit back hard. Already we're seeing some benefits of this anticipated Intel strike back from AMD, I mean most of you were pricing PII x4 940 around $350; well, I got good news, it's going to be $275 :clap: Now watch that price take a significant dip when Intel slashes prices on penryn. In short, you the consumer are the beneficiaries. Unfortunately, AMD is going to take a hit in the pocket. Intel will take some hit too, but it's already profitted enough from penryn to offset any losses at this point. This is the dilemma AMD has, it is going to be forced to price the top end part PII x4 940 below the Q9550. Intel has another hand, in Ci7 920. This is currently priced below the Q9550, so it is going to be a contender too for people looking to upgrade. In short, my assessment that AMD is 18 months late to the market, is spot on; the truth is AMD is once again, playing catch up. Worse, its product looks ordinary against the last-gen Intel competitor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Oh wow, the sky is falling, AMD's gonna fold their chair soon, going under the night Phenom 2 is released. I can't believe these negativity toward this particular company in this forum, it's just totally pathetic. :rolleyes:
Are people supposed to ignore the likely outcomes just because those outcomes bring unpleasant consequences?Quote:
Originally Posted by spursindonesia
AMD need for Intel to have delays with multisocket Nehalem, 32nm and to have Westmere also have problems, because if Intel execute multisocket Nelly, 32nm and Westmere according to their roadmap, AMD will be even worse placed for all of 2010 than they have been for all of 2008 and I just couldn't imagine them surviving all that.
There must be some chance of Intel having problems with at least one of those 3 things, so we will see, but how can one not see the massive problems AMD is potentially facing?
AMD is also dropping its FAB's so this means less overall debt and costs. They can put more of their money back in to R&D and keep things moving along at a better pace. As long as they have a decent P2 launch here and then can keep up the performance and the pace while putting out the triple and dual core models OEM's will be eager to snap them up as long as priced properly. This gives them a healthy chance to climb back into the ring and stay competitive. They don't need Intel to falter, it would help, but they are more than capable now to keep themselves afloat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
do you really believe westmere will be available at q4 2009?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
i really doubt that, nehalem will only be a few % of the market, not more then 5% for a few quarters, one of the reasons is its large die
quite funny actually because people were screaming everywhere about the diesize of K10, but now that intel has a good cpu with a larger die then the K10, all is fine...
look at nehalem as the GTX280, super performance, power hungry beast, too big die
No I don't, at least not to the average punter. But if it is then . . . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiridum
Nehalem isn't that power hungry at stock speeds and whilst the GTX280 is outperformed by the 4870x2, Nehalem doesn't have an equivalent concern.Quote:
look at nehalem as the GTX280, super performance, power hungry beast, too big die
i know a 4870x2 outperforms a gtx280 :p: but that was not my pointQuote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
and nehalem is quit powerhungry
Nehalem should be power hungry for all the people who were laughin' 'n troll'n how Phenom was power hungry. There ain't hard numbers for PhII yet, but thus far i7 920 uses more than Q9450, upto 20% if not more. There are quite some positive articles going around saying that AMD's 45nm SOI process might actually be better than Intel's 45nm HKMG process. As said, we'll have to wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
And to be honest, Im quite curious how PhII 940BE stands out against an equally priced i7 920 really. GTX280 doesnt lose everywhere, although in quite some applications it does, but Im not so sure how these two CPU's go up against each other regarding your 'non-equivalent concern':rolleyes: Something tells me this might be quite close actually. At most we've one month to go so we'll see by then heh:rolleyes:
Performance/watt is the key, not just power draw in isolation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
perf/watt is very good for nehalem, power draw is not....Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
It's not bad, given the enthusiast platform it's currently paired with and tri-channel memory support. It only looks bad because it's compared with extremely power efficient 45nm C2Qs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiridum
You forgot that Fab R&D gets cutted. Since ATIC doesnt invest as much as AMD did. Plus the profit loss etc from not owning the fabs. And AMD is keeping the vast majority of its debts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bgriffs
That's a contradiction; focus, guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiridum
Nah, it is not. You can consume a :banana::banana::banana::banana:load of power and be very efficient (perf/watt) in what you're doing. The "problem" here is that while being much more efficient than previous processors Nehalem still consumes more power than those same processors, specially with HT on. But still it is within in the margins of acceptable power consumption, so no big deal. Also, the high consumption is only under load, at idle is the same or even better than Penryn. Nehalem sucks power when needed, and performs in consequence. When it is not required, it sleeps deeply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
So if you have/want a limit of watts, Nehalem can be a problem. But so can be any other CPU, and if you have PC restrictions Nehalem will perform better at any given limit. I don't see any reasons (except price, and maybe max OC compared with Penryn) to get any other CPU. P2 will only have a fight with it in price. Mediocre and within expectations, but we should thank AMD for it. In the end they are the only competition Intel has.
Here is how Intel views "power draw".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiridum
Figure 3 there shows Intels statistical thermal analysis of MPUs across application workloads ->
http://i37.tinypic.com/2dv1xjc.png
US Patent 7275012 - Automated method and apparatus for processor thermal validationQuote:
Generally, the TDP target is determined as a function of the anticipated thermal stress load the processor will encounter, which in turn is a function of the application software run on the processor. For example, FIG. 3 shows a graph of CPU power vs. number of applications, which is illustrative of a typical power consumption vs. application type distribution. Generally, each application program has its own unique power profile, although the profile has some variability due to loop decisions, I/O activity and interrupts. The graph illustrates a statistical distribution based on averaged application power consumption.
I LOL at all the speculation and crazy things said in these forums. I do love that I can come here and ususlly, I can get info far ahead of all the other forums but man guys get so intensley competetive over products. Let me put it this way, a different perspective if you will. If this product will hit 4ghz on air and be competitive in per clock performance, Than it already has almost all the previous AMD mother board owners bussiness because for 275 bucks they have a complete upgrade. Now for me I have q6600 and I've been considering an I7 however I'm not a, I Have to have top of the performance no matter what it costs kinda person. I like value and performance just like most OCers. I can buy a 200 dollar asus board with 3way xfire and all the stuff I could ever need and P2 for around $275.00. Thats a total of $475 since I already have lots of ddr2 and don't have to upgrade there I'm in cheap. Now if I want an equivelant I7 board I'm looking at around $325 buckeroonies and around $300 for the proc and, I have to pop for new 3 channel DDR3 memory set to get the most of the performance I7 has to offer.Now thats around 700-800 bucks for and upgrade. Times are getting rough in case you haven't looked around guys so, which can you guess most will buy even if at a 5 percent performance loss? Even if Intel lowers prices and the overall is $625-$725 which do you think most will buy? It's a no brainer. AMD is Back, it's about time.
But because you already have a compatible motherboard, it would be even cheaper for you to pick up a Q9550. And given the performance situation of the last couple of years, going 45nm C2Q will be the most cost-effective upgrade for the vast majority of enthusiasts. And for people with overclocked Q6600s like you, they probably shouldn't even bother since nothing will offer a compelling performance improvement other than i7 for multi-threaded applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by MsB
ahh but I dont want my p5k-deluxe with :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty pci-e. I want an upgrade to PCI-e so I can xfire If I desire with full speed. So I am going to have to get a mobo. As to whether q9550 will outperform a P2 thats pure speculation at this point no one really has that info yet. and, Please don't quote some review of server procs with limited tests because till we get them and test them we will not know anyting for sure. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
q9550 will be faster. If you get it to 3.8 GHz, good. That would equal about 4-4.2 GHz Deneb. I am fairly certain that Deneb can not compete in raw speed when both platforms are overclocked. Sure deneb is going to be cheaper though. Then again, do you RAELLY care for the +/- 10 % differences which are program/application dependet and can only be seen via graphs?Quote:
Originally Posted by MsB
Just get which ever is cheaper for you.
TDP is a thermal spec. It's not directly related to power consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzman
Yep, you are correct. Thanks to informal and Macadamia for this SOURCE.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
Quote:
Overclocking: Whatever Happened to Headroom?
Power consumption of an IC is a function of the number of switching events and the square of the supply voltage, at least in theory. If leakage currents are taken into account, we found that the third power of the voltage provides a better fit for any of the CPUs we have measured over the years. What this amounts to is that a 10% increase in voltage will result in a 21% increase in power consumption and thermal dissipation using the classic square function and a 33% increase using our empirically derived function. If the operating frequency is increased by 30% (knowing that a lot of the Nehalem cores will do run up to 4.1 GHz) using 10% overvolting, the thermal dissipation will reach 177% of the stock value. That is, even using the official TDP of 130W, we are looking at roughly 230W, which approximates a power density of some 100W/cm2. This number is not out of the world but bear in mind that the basis for the calculation was not the maximum power consumption but what a typical user may experience using commercial software.
You forgot to bold the part where it's the estimated power consumption of an overclocked Nehalem 4.1 GHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzman
Thanks. I added your suggested highlight. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
What voltage is this at?
I'm not sure about that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
I seriously fail to see the light in your wheel-reinvention. In games it doesnt do a whole lot better but it does consume more power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
I couldnt care less about power consumption, just funny how K10 was so bad and now Nehalem is awesome:rolleyes: In the end K10 was for me personally a lot more worth than a C2, although C2 had quite a few numbers on its side, the actual fun was lacking severely. i7 now has about the same features as K10, but the platform is overpriced and although Intel finally managed to have everything available on launch, most triple channel and motherboards weren't. Sod that.
Not significantly more:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3453&p=3
i7 920 uses 10W more than a C2Q 9450 which has full load power consumption of around 50W. Since games don't generally fully tax CPU, the full load system power consumption doesn't provide a necessarily accurate picture of the power usage while gaming.
K10 is bad because it neither had performance, performance/watt or power usage. Much the same way Prescott was bad.Quote:
I couldnt care less about power consumption, just funny how K10 was so bad and now Nehalem is awesome:rolleyes:
Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
IIRC Lynnfield drops some of the memory performance features that are present in the full-fledged Nehalem systems. My guess is that there will be a pretty large performance penalty, although it might be offset by slightly larger overclocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
dual channel is better in some scenarios because of lower latenciesQuote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
I believe the measurements shown in the anandtech article are inaccurate. Here is an explanation of potential measurement error on Nehalem processors by LostCircuits:Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
Quote:
In our initial article about the Core i7, codename Nehalem, we were stunned by the power efficiency of Intel’s new CPU, particularly, as we stated, since the measured processor power consumption also comprised that of the memory controller – a saving on the system level of somewhere in the order of 15-20W under load. In the course of numerous discussions, it became obvious that the numbers we measured did not quite add up to the thermal load. After the embargo on the Core i7 was lifted, data sheets became available proving our assumptions wrong, in that the memory controller was NOT part of the power we measured through the VRMs. At the same time, CanardPC and several other websites like HardTecs4U posted additional information regarding the overall power configuration of the Nehalem CPU, which is somewhat different from what we have come to know in the past from CPUs offered by Intel or AMD.
Pretty large? As in 1-3%? Maybe the same gained with the ondie PCIe. Before trichannel was useless. Now its pretty large gain! :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
Lets just say it doesnt matter much.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/15967/6
Not exactly the huge penalty for a 920 with dualchannel.
It's a total system power consumption measurement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzman
;)You got it. Phenom II will hit Intel harder than anyone can imagine. It's perf/watt/$$ will be better than anything Intel has to offer today. With today's economy, how many people will be springing for $1K upgrades when they can buy a $250 proc to replace the one they have or buy a whole new platform for half the price?Quote:
Originally Posted by MsB
With the money saved, you could buy an air conditioner to cool your room and not your cpu. ;)
...in January...:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by taurus_sel
:rofl::rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Slovnaft
I still dont get that part at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
Prescott was bad because it was actually worse than Northwood in every espect. Only in a very few areas it was marginally better. But K10 is quite a bit better than K8. Also K10 uses IMC and native quad core design on 65nm. It ain't a miracle it uses more power than MCM Yorkfields or even just Brisbane/Windsor:rolleyes: That's why it's just stupid.
You can of course make clear for your self if you care about power consumption etc. In the end it's like saying it ain't fair to compare a GTX280 with a HD4870X2 because the latter one has two cores, in the end they're competitors. Point is just that K10 is called Prescott, it just ain't, I think you need more stuff to name a CPU a Prescott. Otherwise you could call i7 a Prescott too only because it uses more power, but that would be kind of weird, wouldnt it?
my biggest problem with lynnfield is the lack of 2 full x16 slots, it may not bottleneck my 3870s but it does bottleneck 2 4870sQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
sure they can use some sort of pcie switch (plx/nf200) but i think that such a switch could be a problem with nextgen cards :shrug:
The pic which shows that 3 GHz Deneb would be a tad faster than a 2.83 GHz Q9400.Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidReactor
Q9550 will be faster, no doubt about it.
How prescott compared to northwood was not important, What is important is how it compared to K8. That was also k10's problem, How it compared to conroe was more important than how it compared to k8.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
until NDA is up and everyone sees the results with the HT at 2400 instead of the misleading 1800.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Wait...uhh.. Nice! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck
FYI, dont get your hopes up. that was based on nothing but hope lolQuote:
Originally Posted by donitsi
I was gonna say, what source......
don't do that to us! Use a smiley or something :p:
Ya, sorry bout dat.:shakes: now theres gonna be an article at the Inq.
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck
Should keep an eye out, and if it does show up that would be classic. Then we could all spam INQ with hate mail :ROTF:
Yeah :rolleyes: Not everyone lives in Boston. And not everyone needs an air conditioner blowing through their CPU cooler to get a decent overclock. Maybe in your case you could buy a heater. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Slovnaft
Argh cmon, share your knowledge with us :DQuote:
Originally Posted by taurus_sel
When NDA ends?
You got me on that, lol :DQuote:
Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck