Printable View
the performance per core is lower than i7, and HT helps them lot in MT...Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
thuban can be very competitive in encoding and rendering scenarios, but it may perform just like deneb in any app that doesnt scale with more than 4 cores...
in rendering/encoding the 3.2ghz hexa-core will compete with I7 965, it's going to be around that guy. doesn't have HT or higher core perf, but it has 2 real extra cores so it is going to even out in the end. It's going to be a sweet budget workstation CPU.
Well the Opteron Octocore is coming out soon at 263$ 2 ghz + 16M cache. I will buy that...
It's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
IMHO it will compete in multi-threaded (6 or more threads) application. The most applications which can use 4 threads can use 6 or more.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
Anyway not all applications like HT. Bench
Sweeper summed it up nicely. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
Which are going to be utilized in few and very limited situations. In the same scenario, i7 has 4 extra virtual cores which are helping many heavily multithreaded apps. Combined with the more efficient architecture, I'm pretty sure i7 will win in almost all the general user software available up to date.Quote:
The Phenom II X6 will have +50% cores
I'm afraid you are misinterpreting performance with frequency. Nehalem has much more efficient architecture than K10h. The differences between these two have been covered like million times on this forum, so I'm not going to talk about that.Quote:
and higher clocks as well. It will win by force of numbers.;)
Exactly, Deneb/Thuban cores are around 25% slower than i7 cores in average, clock for clock. At least 9 out of 10 things can't utilize more than 4 cores. In such scenarios, an i7 will outperform K10h. In that 1 out of 10 things, Thuban might or might not win, depending on how HT can help i7's cores for a given software.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
I'm pretty sure that you're completely wrong but the time will prove right one of us.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
Don't be afraid because I'm not misinterpreting anything. I know both architectures well. Just try to understand that the X6 will have 50% more cores than Bloomfield/Lynnfield which can compensate the lower clock2clock performance in many applications. That's all.Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
Just to mention some popular titles which can take advantage of the 6 or more threads/cores: Adobe After Effects, Adobe Premier Pro, Sony Vegas, Cyberlink converters, Finereader, 3ds max, Maya, Lightwave, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
If an application can't take advantage of the more than four thread/cores than it can't take advantage of the HT neither.
Nice buy for sure. But what is a good mobo going to cost?Quote:
Originally Posted by vitchilo
Some PR-people in AMD should get fired. This news are exactly one week late. It should break out on Mars 15. !
and more cores wont help against higher IPC in those cases...Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
Exactly but the higher clocks can help. Turbo and more MHz for the same price.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
http://prohardver.hu/dl/upc/2010-03/13063_turbo3d.jpg
http://prohardver.hu/dl/upc/2010-03/...st-498x350.jpg
Any multithreaded app can take advantage of the two extra cores in Thuban. The application has no clue about how many "threads" are available to it. That's controlled by the OS. The OS will schedule the threads to execute on certain cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
From these graphs it looks like the unused cores are going into cnq idle mode, i wonder if its a good thing for performance.
Power consumption should be great tho.
thats something very nice intel introduced in 2008.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
even at those frequencies, it wouldnt beat an i7 930 @ 2.93ghz/3.06ghz
but I got your point... :up:
Yes, and what about the very nice IMC which introduced in 2003 by AMD and only in 2008 by Intel. IMHO better to not start a stupid argument about this.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
Any evidence or should I satisfied with the empty words?:)Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
yes, pretty much all the benchmarks with bloomfield 3ghz vs deneb 4ghz :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
Let's just remind the resident intel fans doing the shift this evening @ XS that Bloomfield has approx. ~22% IPC advantage,on average(variety of workloads,mostly MT with a mix of single thread apps) over same clocked Deneb(SMT on,Turbo off). So no,a Thuban with Turbo mode for poorly threaded apps. and 50% more real cores (that also do turbo if utilization is below 6 cores) will compete more than fine with Bloom and Lynnfield lines.
All right. Looks like that I have to be satisfied with the empty words.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
There is no such thing like a "K10h". You can call it either K10, where "10" is a decimal ten, meaning the 10th in the "K" line. Alternatively, you can call it F10h, where the F is the abbreviation of Family and "10h" is a hexadecimal number which equals decimal 16, meaning the 16th family of AMD x86 CPU's (which followed Family F(h) (K8), where F(h) equals decimal 15). So, "K10h" is a stupid mixture, used by some people knowing nothing about hexadecimal numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
If AMDs trubo work anything like intels Turbo, the windows scheduler will prevent any higher turbo modes then + x1 (same as for intel).Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
Got love that the windows scheduler distributes loads over all cores....
Not as high as it could be.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
dream on :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
3Ghz Bloomfield should be around 3.3-3.4 Ghz Deneb only
A 3GHz Bloomfield should be around a 3.3-3.4 Ghz Thuban.Quote:
Originally Posted by jcmarfilph
3GHz Bloomfield should be around a 3.0-3.1Ghz Thuban in highly multithreaded apps.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
Based on two benchmark results posted in this thread, 1055T can compete with i7 920 or even 930. That's 100Mhz difference only. :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
Thanks for correcting me. My bad, making a stupid mixture of K10 and F10h(or how AMD calls their K10/K10.5 in their tech docs). As for the hexadecimal numbers...:rofl: Do you think that an electrical engineer with an M.Sc degree, who has programmed in assembler at age of 15, knows nothing about hexadecimal numbers? :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by dess
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by jcmarfilph
Of course, sooner or latter time will tell. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
And that would be the case only when heavily(more than 4 cores) multithreaded software comes in to play. For the rest of the apps, which are not optimized to utilize more than 4 cores, and such are most of the apps available today, the extra 50% cores will be useless, while the higher IPC of Nehalem will yield higher performance.Quote:
Don't be afraid because I'm not misinterpreting anything. I know both architectures well. Just try to understand that the X6 will have 50% more cores than Bloomfield/Lynnfield which can compensate the lower clock2clock performance in many applications. That's all.
I agree, most of the apps you mentioned can take advantage of the 50% extra cores, but that won't yield 50% better performance. Most of these apps will yield no more than 15~20% better performance. Only the x264 and divX converters might yield 30+% better performance in average(and that depends of the type and quality). That won't be enough to counter an i7 clocked 5% lower.Quote:
Just to mention some popular titles which can take advantage of the 6 or more threads/cores: Adobe After Effects, Adobe Premier Pro, Sony Vegas, Cyberlink converters, Finereader, 3ds max, Maya, Lightwave, etc...
Exactly. And in such scenario, Nehalem dominates over same clocked Phenom II.Quote:
If an application can't take advantage of the more than four thread/cores than it can't take advantage of the HT neither.
I stand behind what I said. I hope that benches will popup in the following two weeks, so we can include some exact numbers in our discussion.
AM2+ mobo could be used too in this case for ThubanQuote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
please, dont be ridiculousQuote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
an i5 750 @ 2.66ghz beats PII 965 @ 3.4GHZ in pretty much all scenarios..
do I really need to post benchmarks of bloomfield @ 3ghz against deneb @3.5-3.7ghz? :shakes:
please do, we want to see it so we can believe it!Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ridney
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...3451/21964.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...3451/21969.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...3451/21971.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...3451/21972.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...3451/21974.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...3451/21991.png
all stock, but clearly shows that a 20% higher clocked PII (4 cores) cant beat lynnfield/bloomfield...
so is this chart showing that we get an OC even if only 4 cores are used? that can help by a good 100-200mhz. if its true id love to see how effectively this works by comparing benchies and games between the same clocked 6 and 4 core turbo AMDsQuote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
:rolleyes: i7, i5, i3 don't run at stock clocks at all....
Hell, with Turbo enabled, my i7 920 never runs at 2.66 (if its idle or with light tasks, runs at ~2.1-2.2, if it uses one-eight threads, runs at 2.8 ever).
oh i see, i thought you had tested them yourself with 3ghz bloomfield vs 3.5~3.7 deneb :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
yes, just clarifying things...Quote:
Originally Posted by ridney
every architecture has its strenghs and weaknesses, you can always handpick tests where PII has the edge.. but overall, it's fair to say i7 beats the competition with much lower clocks ;)
Having done that, too, no, I don't. It was those who originally came up with this form. I suppose you've picked it up somewhere and used this way afterwards, not knowing or caring about the exact meaning (being more into Intel than AMD). Anyway, it's wrong this way and better to avoid as it has a shadow of ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
I did not say you won't get the same experience. I did say that I do get better experience, because I do notice the difference. If you don't and/or PhII is enough for you then stop right now because any (Intel or AMD) faster processor would be useless for you. However I bet you will buy a new one much sooner than you think, then what, you bought it to get a better experience? You had a good enough one, right? ;) There is no such thing as agree to disagree, there are two processors, one is faster, you choose the slower one because it's enough for you. Don't try to make the faster one look bad or something because you can't/don't need to use it to its full potential, even more when you are in XS, we do use our CPUs.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
Yes, I don't need to test PhII, its perfomance is well known already thanks to the trillions of comparisons out there, it sits right there with the C2Qs at the same clocks and I've owned a C2Q. i5/i7 are out of sight. This is a fact, not a guess.
About the games, I'm not talking about guesses like you. The best review I can read is play the games myself. If C2Q-->i5 gives me 20 minFPS more I don't need to read anything more except to confirm my findings, something I've already done, and that's why I write what I write. If you don't believe me about the TF2 increase, go read any review that test Source Engine games like L2D or play it, you'll see it for yourself. If you don't believe me about the Assassin's Creed increase, go walk into a crowd in your machine, etc. I can feel any of these right after firing up the game. If you can't well, you can't, but I do. Yeah I remember the whole load of "slower but smoother" BS. Thank god AMD has improved with PhII vs the original Phenom, and magically we don't hear it anymore. I bet a lot of hardcore AMD guys do love to play between 50-80 instead of 70-150, exageration but you get the idea.
I tell you the same as Rav, you have certain requirements, I have different ones. If you are happy then what the hell f*ck Intel. However I want to say something: you don't see increases in framerate in a CPU bound game when you increase CPU frequency? Something is going wrong there, check it out because you're probably wasting a lot of FPS somewhere. Maybe at 1080p the 5850 is the bottleneck. I have to say that my 5850 is overclocked, but nothing spectacular: 850/1200, I play at 1680x1050 8xAA/16xAF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom128
If that were true then AMD would have 80% or close to 80% market share. You know this is not the case unfortunately, so why do you say such absurd statement? People don't know what they need, plain and simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by haylui
I wonder how Intel did it, with Vista's thread bounce killing Phenom's performance when CnQ is enabled.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
EDIT: I've read it (I forgot about it), Intel shuts their cores down :up:
Phenom II's CnQ fixed it by throttling and clocking all cores to the same speed. Perhaps x6's turbo works the same way, just that they improved the power consumption when cores are clocked up, and decides turbo level depending on the overall core usage. Just my two cents.
Does Window 7 do thread bounce?
Phenom = CnQ 2.0
Phenom II = CnQ 3.0
Phenom II x6 = CnQ 3.1 I guess :confused:
C&N with TURBO mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
If its locked then 890FX have to be able to go >400+ bus speedQuote:
Originally Posted by mindfury
we only need 250 bus speed to get it to 4ghz at 3.2 stockQuote:
Originally Posted by Dumo
I dont notice the difference between 100 or 120frames per second.So in these rare cpu bound situations (all games i play are gpu bound) its not gonna make a difference for me between say 3.5 PH2 or even 4ghz i5/7.Quote:
I did not say you won't get the same experience. I did say that I do get better experience, because I do notice the difference. If you don't and/or PhII is enough for you then stop right now because any (Intel or AMD) faster processor would be useless for you. However I bet you will buy a new one much sooner than you think, then what, you bought it to get a better experience? You had a good enough one, right?
Faster processors and specially more cores ARE useful to me because i like to do many things at once,like encode and game at the same time.Thats the reason im upgrading to thuban :).Migrating to i5 750 would be more expensive and wouldnt get me more performance on my workload.So, it would be stupid of me ;-).
Well, there is this kind of thing when people are being civilized and understand that their OPINION, could be different than others :).But ok,lets dwell.Quote:
There is no such thing as agree to disagree, there are two processors, one is faster, you choose the slower one because it's enough for you. Don't try to make the faster one look bad or something because you can't/don't need to use it to its full potential, even more when you are in XS, we do use our CPUs.
I dont MAKE faster processors look bad.What i was saying in the beginning in the reply to your statement, was that i wont be sacrificing any game experience using multicore cpu slower PER core than lets say i5 750 because pretty much every new game is GPU bound, and the older ones that arent, reach astronomical amounts of FPS on both processors.
And i stand by that.Remember, its YOU that said to ME that i WILL GET INFERIOR gaming experience on thuban than i5 or i7.So its was you who was painting one processor in bad light.I am saying that in gaming both processors are gpu bound.And you havent prove me wrong.You just said there is a difference, but every review with high quality gfx out there shows that GPUs run out of juice WAAAY faster than cpu.
Funny, i remember when i7 launched, it was sweeping through benchmarks like a plasma torch, however when it came to gaming it wasnt that much faster, if i remember correctly 12MB L2 cpus from intel were even sometimes faster.Quote:
Yes, I don't need to test PhII, its perfomance is well known already thanks to the trillions of comparisons out there, it sits right there with the C2Qs at the same clocks and I've owned a C2Q. i5/i7 are out of sight. This is a fact, not a guess.
And yes ,PH2 is slower in almost every gaming benchmark than i7.But to show that benchmarks have to be run in low quality.And nobody games that way.
Well, i played too, i often use different platforms, and well, i havent seen what you see.Not between PH2 and nehalem.So we have different opinions here.And i wont agree with you just because u say so.Quote:
About the games, I'm not talking about guesses like you. The best review I can read is play the games myself. If C2Q-->i5 gives me 20 minFPS more I don't need to read anything more except to confirm my findings, something I've already done, and that's why I write what I write. If you don't believe me about the TF2 increase, go read any review that test Source Engine games like L2D or play it, you'll see it for yourself. If you don't believe me about the Assassin's Creed increase, go walk into a crowd in your machine, etc. I can feel any of these right after firing up the game. If you can't well, you can't, but I do. Yeah I remember the whole load of "slower but smoother" BS. Thank god AMD has improved with PhII vs the original Phenom, and magically we don't hear it anymore. I bet a lot of hardcore AMD guys do love to play between 50-80 instead of 70-150, exageration but you get the idea.
I played source based games, and they were absurdly fast.
I played AS, it was boring but no dramatical slowdowns, nope.
You say that "smoother" feel was BS, but well, you did notice that between core and nehalem, so maybe it has to do with something as obvious as build in MC ?Ofcourse you just call it BS, because you admit that you havent even tested PH2...
And the last part.Of course, exaggeration ;-)
Because you really i see have a feeling towards min fps.Heres a snippet.
[QUOTE]http://www.pcgameshardware.com/scree...iginal/2009/11http://www.pcgameshardware.com/scree...Us-1680-1x.png
In this cpu bound game you have this drastic difference of 10%...
And REALLY anything above 80FPS is just insanely hard to SEE.In pretty much any normal game, resolution and IQ ,most of the people are going to hardly go above 60FPS (which is ofcourse plenty for our eyes, remember that movies at the cinema have 24)
Of course we see, its just that pretty much all recent games are GPU bound at humane IQ settings.Quote:
ou don't see increases in framerate in a CPU bound game when you increase CPU frequency?
So as i said before, i disagreeabout your comment that using multicore phenom II cpu wont get me pretty much the same gaming experience as i7.When clocked high enough (much higher than i7) all my gaming situations are ,and morover gonna be when i upgrade to 5850 ,GPU LIMITED.
100% of consumers need the competition AMD brings, maybe that statement isn't so absurd? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
This will certainly be a fun processor --- more fun than that will be the fanboy threads that erupt when this thing launches, the flame wars may become legendary.
flame wars has started already! even without proper information :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Frankly, this thread has been very good ... good info, some speculation, and a lot of excitement ... this is what it is all about.Quote:
Originally Posted by ridney
if 890fx is only a bit better than 790 so I'm not sure about it :shakes: faster boards on 890gx/890x and probably they will do frequency >400 htt as it was with 7xx series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumo
it's xs, people don't care about such low frequency as 4ghz is :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ridney
It isn't, according to this (auto-translated from Swedish).Quote:
Originally Posted by mindfury
Didn't you hear about the investigations against Intel for the illegal tricks to prevent AMD gaining marketshare?Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
And so those people usually get Intel from many vendors, for some reason...Quote:
People don't know what they need, plain and simple.
btw, know what abou talking...i5 750 is simillary in real performance with x4 955. X4 965 is a bit better, i read all reviews from world, im reading to every CPU as minimal 20 reviews, ussually about 30-40 to one product. So, not flame here guys, here is it about Thuban, not i5 750 (o.c., its good CPU, maybe the best from Intel for customers)
I meant....at least 400X15:)Quote:
Originally Posted by ridney
C'n'Q in Phenoms is slow compared to how Intel Turbo can switch speeds.The biggest problem with dynamic core clocking - delay between states.
AMD's new Thuban and Lisbon core supposedly address that problem by moving all power controlling logic into CPU (same as Intel did). This should ensure faster p-state switching and less delay. In return we should get less hit from retarded Windows task scheduler when doing light workloads.
I can't wait to test this new CPU myself!
Black Editions are unlocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumo
http://www.semiaccurate.com/forums/s...2&postcount=23
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
why do people like you have to come into AMD threads at all, and start blabbering about core i7 ftw pwn spits on phenom2?Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
it hast even launched yet and wt-f you fanboys piss all over already.
you dont even make sense. :down::down::down:
seriously, get over your insecurity.
Looks like that you forgot about the higher clocks.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
15-20%?! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
Luckily you will get +400-500MHz core speed with AMD for the same money.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/g...3637/21996.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/g...3637/21997.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...3451/21965.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/c...3451/21967.png
http://techreport.com/r.x/core-i5-i7/pov-chess2.gif
http://techreport.com/r.x/core-i5-i7/pov-bench.gif
http://techreport.com/r.x/core-i5-i7/folding-tinker.gif
http://techreport.com/r.x/core-i5-i7/folding-amber.gif
http://techreport.com/r.x/core-i5-i7...-gromacs33.gif
http://techreport.com/r.x/core-i5-i7...ng-average.gif
In your dreams fanboy :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
@Oliverda:
Way to go. :up:
So you have just shown us that a 750 is on most of the time faster/on par with a 540mhz faster clocked 955 and sometimes can even match the 740mhz faster 965?
That would mean the 750 has a 20-28% IPC advantage, even when Turbo is on all the time on the 750 it still would be a 14-21% advantage.
Anyway I don't see how this is relevant for this thread, to go for another "my cpu has more ipc then yours, and the other guys says, but my cpu can clock higher" insulting game.
I want hard numbers and im sure we will see them soon. Also theres much more then just the raw performance of a cpu that comes into play when someone is looking for a new cpu.
I am excited about the new hexacores, both from intel and amd.
i5 750 doesn't beat Phenom II X4 965 in all cases, but 750 beats it in majority of cases
Here is full side to side comparison between i7 750 and X4 965
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/defau...109&p2=102&c=1
(note: in some tests lower score means better, so read each one carefully)
i5 750 is the clear winner overall
Quote:
Originally Posted by dartaz
hm, maybe here, but dont fogot, i5 750 is in normal mode 4x2.8GHz (turbo is on) and for single/dual aplication are cores diferent clocking. U must more and more to read. I read all reviews this CPUs and know, x4 955 is simillary with performace with i5 750. "Experience/fazit" is not from one or two reviews. Minimal is think 10-15 reviews for comparing.
Guys, let's cut the Intel vs AMD debates please.
Intel is substantially faster than AMD clock for clock, this isn't news.
Why is this chip interesting? Because it potentially offers an inexpensive true 6 core solution, that will hopefully overclock similarly to current quad core offerings from AMD. This represents a good bang for buck in multi-threaded apps.
Everyone should be able to appreciate that, no matter what camp your in. People who game with Intel rigs, this new hexacore could make a great crunching/workstation for you, as less cost than your i7 920 ran you brand new. :up:
good news :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by wuttz
fixed! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by EnJoY
so obvious, and some fanboys are still arguing... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by dartaz
and thats with 23-28% lower clocks compared to amd offering
now dont tell me thuban will beat i5/i7 with a small clock bump when some cores are idle
Thing is all this turbo features make such claims not true, depending on the load/temperature difference in these tests is 18-5% ,and not 28%.In properly cooled enviroment this cpu never works at 2.66ghz.2.8Ghz four cores or 3.2ghz for 2-1core load.Quote:
thats so obvious, and some fanboys are still arguing...
and thats with 28% lower clocks compared to amd ofeering
These kind of tests make comparisons weird.
BTW. link you provided goes to a i5 750 vs 955 bench.Quote:
Here is full side to side comparison between i7 750 and X4 965
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=109&p2=88
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/defau...109&p2=102&c=1
Heres less dramatic link to a 965 comparison ;-)
The cpu looks very interesting. I also foresee epic flame wars in the not too distant future....
I edited my post and changed it to i5 750 vs 965 bench. But i5 750 is still better overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
Rav[666], i5 750 won 33 out of 43, 965 BE won 9, 1 tie. So it looks like you just shot yourself in the foot.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
I like the prices of these AMD chips a lot. They will compete very well in multi-threaded environments. I also like the fact that these can run on older hardware with a bios update. I wonder if that'll impact overclockability.
If these would do 4GHZ on decent air-cooling in 28c ambients, then kudos to the Green Team. I know I'll definitely be picking one of these up for a dedicated encoding rig, if they prove to be good overclockers (4GHZ on decent air).
How ? I never claimed that i965 was faster in these benchmarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
It aint.Nehalem architecture is very potent.I was just saying that the difference isnt THAT pronounced as previous poster claimed :).
i5 750 however is gonna be put against a 1055T, and from where i stand, for people like me who multitask heavy ,the 1055T will be a better pick.Putting aside the fact that i wont have to change mb, ram.Price of these new six cores are just THAT good.We will see if intel responds to that.Would be nice.
And all the logic draws me to a conclusion that they should be doing 4ghz on high end AIR.So single core performance is gonna be DECENT, and multicore is gonna be on par with 4 cored nehalems.I never claimed that phenoms are overally faster.Theyre smaller and weaker.Its that there are more of them ;)
You have nicely summed up the essence.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by EnJoY
(Btw it's very funny when the fanboys talk about fanboyism.:ROTF:)
One or two core only loads never happen in the windows environemt, so basically any higher multi then +x1 will not apply under normal stock conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
I forsee the same limitation for amds trubo implementation as long as the windows task scheduler doesn't gets smarter.
thats for sure, they will be very competitive in MT.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
the thing is, i5/i7 might still have the edge in less threaded apps, of course turbo will make the gap smaller...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcmarfilph
yeah :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by jcmarfilph
It is sooo funny watching people argue over product they don't even own ha ha. :)
sweeper:
here is for u a bit reviews for basic comparsion (believe me, 1-2 review one product is not objective for conclucsion)
extrahardware forum
Your post is again full of I don't notice, I don't think, I can't see, I call BS... that's fine, nobody here is saying you must see those things. You can have your opinion, we all have one. But the facts are facts, and in some of your opinions you're going against facts. Benchmarks of real world scenarios prove that you don't need to run low settings to have higher fps on Intel CPUs in real games. I'm telling you I don't need to read any review to notice the same thing. You choose for whatever reason not to believe any of this. That's an opinion against a fact. If you want to go against facts go ahead, but I'll stop now because I don't like doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
60fps enough for the eyes? Oh noes, not the 60Hz stuff again. Yes, movies are shot at 24fps, that's why they stutter like if there were no tomorrow.
Of course, but he wasn't talking about that. He said people need AMD cheap processors as if people need low end CPUs. While that's true, people don't need X or Y brand, they "need" what the stupid guy at the shop tells them is the fastest option for the money they want to spend.Quote:
Originally Posted by insurgent
Of course I heard about them, but no court is going to make AMD gain 60% market share, they're currently at 80%-20%. That's work for the marketing department, something AMD lacks in since forever. Everybody knows about Intel, Pentium, etc. You ask them about AMD, and usually the answer is: what's AMD? A new Chinese car maker?Quote:
Originally Posted by dess
Pardon my ignorance, but how aggressive is the purported turbo mode for these chips? Would it exceed 3.4GHZ, and across how many cores? Taking a cue from the benchmarks posted above, anything around 3.4GHZ is not going to beat the i5 750. It'll take slightly more to be on par, and significantly higher to actually beat it convincingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Sweeper_
I feel unless your life depends on heavy multitasking, or you work with a heavily multithreaded application that is actually capable of utilizing all cores @ 100%, this processor is not for you.
This processor would be suitable for WCG, F@H, x264 Encoding, etc. And that's for those already on the AMD platform. People on Intel platform already have this performance with the i5, i7 quads. It'll be interesting to see how much PPDs this chip can achieve vs. the 8 threads of Nehalem in WCG.
Out of curiosity why how did a News section Launch date reveal of 6 core AMD chips become a discussion about 1156?
:shrug:
My 2c..... gulftown had its launch.......let thuban have its now.......
the 1090T with turbo goes to 3.6 ghz, a 400 mhz boost. pretty decent i think.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
the 1055T with turbo goes to 3.3 ghz, a 500 mhz boost.
thats my opinion tooQuote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
by the way...
http://prohardver.hu/dl/upc/2010-03/...st-498x350.jpg
*you'll see a 500mhz boost only when 1 core is being used
ok, lets back to Thuban. Why is diference x6 1090T and future model 1095T?
hmmm, dunno, maybe they want to introduce new socket? or diff mem controller? Dunno, with X4s the 5 meant DDR3 support.
Maybe TDp or a new ddr standard..Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
but 1055T is with DDR2 and DDR3...maybe only TDP???Or diferent better turbo core or new revision?
Thanks. No doubt. The 1090T is the highest model, at 3.2GHZ stock clocks, right? What segment is it in, price-wise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu
@Sweeper. Thanks for the link. The slide is missing some info. So when turbo kicks in across 4 cores, is that a +200mhz jump for all four cores?
Also how does AMDs implementation of (Core Boost?) Turbo Boost work? What constraints are there, if any? I mean, are certain criteria need to be met for turbo to kick in, or does it kick based on number of threads being utilized. I should think it'll act exactly as Intel's ie. thermal, voltage headroom, etc.
Nice points.;) So, since you entered the discussion and since I believe that you have some Thubans ready for OC-ing on your desk, can you share some info with us. :D For example what revision it will be? What frequencies should we expect using a high-end air cooler? What are the temperature and voltage tolerances? Will it have unlocked multipliers?Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
http://prohardver.hu/dl/upc/2010-03/13063_turbo3d.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu
;)
tsk tsk even if I did which I don't, I still wouldn't be able to say that I had one nor could I comment. You should know that by now :)Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
Any info that has been leaked was not leaked legally ;)
But is not ilegall say, if u have one ES Thuban (or retail) home for testing :). YES/NO? :-)
He stinks on Thuban :rofl:
*chew is a good guy and won't breach NDA no matter how much we will ask :up:
The only hope for us, starving for new details is to look in China direction where people are letting cats from the bag earlier than others ...
fine.... ill put the battery and jumper cables back in the car, always gotta ruin all my fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
the rumors said around 280 $ for it. Should be a monster in price/perf for my interests, rendering that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhNoes!
but NDA is not about " i have this CPU", right? Or with NDA u dont speak nothing? I thought, its only about screens, infos about chip, benchmarks etc. But u can to say "yes, i have it, and its all what i can say"
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Sorry! :)
By STARGAZERWell ,no, my post is full of information, and some benchmarks that are RELEVANT to the argument we had.Your posts on the other hand are full of "I MYSELF THINK/FEEL ITS THAT WAY".Quote:
Your post is again full of I don't notice, I don't think, I can't see, I call BS... that's fine, nobody here is saying you must see those things. You can have your opinion, we all have one. But the facts are facts, and in some of your opinions you're going against facts. Benchmarks of real world scenarios prove that you don't need to run low settings to have higher fps on Intel CPUs in real games. I'm telling you I don't need to read any review to notice the same thing. You choose for whatever reason not to believe any of this. That's an opinion against a fact. If you want to go against facts go ahead, but I'll stop now because I don't like doing that.
60fps enough for the eyes? Oh noes, not the 60Hz stuff again. Yes, movies are shot at 24fps, that's why they stutter like if there were no tomorrow.
In the beginning someone gave you scaling benchmark for i7 and PH2.You ignored that.Than i gave another one, you ignored that.Than you said that in games that are cpu bound difference is huge ,i gave you a link to benchmark of a game that you listed, it showed SOME difference in order of 10% and you well, ignored that.And you call "BS".Come on.I seeFACTS exactly, and the FACT IS that in REAL WORLD SCENARIOS with high enough IQ(HIGH QUALITY SETTINGS), games are MUCH MORE gpu bound than they are CPU BOUND.That is a FACT.Now youre telling that you dont need to read any reviews because well, it seems you know better.But you know what ? It aint a FACT if you just have a feeling ;-).So its you who have OPINION against a FACT.
And please dont mix up HZ as in refresh rate to FPS, aint the same thing you know.And yes 60FPS is fluid motion VIDEO, its more than 2x that of a movie fps.However it even isnt a topic we are discussing.
BTW. "stuttering" occurs when there isnt fluid FPS number, it wont stutter if it goes in steady 24fps, it WILL however stutter if video is going from 20 to 80 in microseconds.
If you have any credible benchmarks to show that PH2 in real world settings suffers from big drops and i7 doesnt.Show us.If not.Maybe you are wrong ?
So, how is this related to Thuban?Quote:
Originally Posted by RaV[666]
NDA means non disclosure........means you can't disclose anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Your a stinker :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
I got the new meaning of NDA = No Disclosure of ANYTHING:ROTF::ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by chew*
I know that it has gone way off track.It started by me saying that thubans will be great for people that do heavy multitasking like me.I said that i often do some stuff in the background on some cores and play a game on the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
Mr. Party pooper there replied that i "wont get as good game experience as i7 does" with thuban.I said i will because games are GPU bound in 99% high IQ cases, he said otherwise.And i see now that i got into stupid argument with a fanboy.And im stopping.Sorry sir.:p:
Anyhow, any confirmations on whole price listing ? 1035T and 109xT are missing if i recall.
Virtual core vs REAL CORE.I know which one I want.:rofl:
is anyone worried about if mobos can handle overclocking 6 cores past 4ghz with 1.5-1.6V behind it?
i know alot of boards are good for quads up too and past 200W to the cpu, but with the 2 extra cores, think people will run into issues adding a possible 50 extra watts to the system?
I've seen over 350w at the wall in certain circumstances with a "minimal draw vidcard in 2d" @ 6+ on 790.......I'm sure the 890 boards will handle this fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan