Even in the Crysis test it's only 7.5% slower than the similar clocked Yorkfield, so the stock performance is not that bad. But the Yorkfield will definitely oc higher.
Printable View
Even in the Crysis test it's only 7.5% slower than the similar clocked Yorkfield, so the stock performance is not that bad. But the Yorkfield will definitely oc higher.
when is phenom coming to desktop anyway?
yorkfield, is it really great compared to the conroe? in ocing i don't think its way yy better. phenom oc potential might just not suckQuote:
Originally Posted by awdrifter
Maybe they thought the model numbers from July was still valid, when the 7000 was referring to a quad-core model.Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
A little research over CPU test suite in PCMark05. "CPU test suite" hardly depends on memory amount or HDD speed.
Athlon64 X2 2.0GHz: ~4100
2xDual Opteron 2.0GHz: ~5200
Core 2 Duo 2.0GHz: ~5100
Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz: ~5900
Core 2 Quad 2.4GHz: ~7700
Unfortunelly there are no results for 2.0GHz Intel quad core.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=1036253
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=998565
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=1037427
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=1002841
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=1104423
Phenom 2.0GHz: 5830
Athlon64 X2 3.2GHz: 6510
phenom @ 3.0 should 'easily' beat k8@ 3.0...by the look of these figures,Quote:
Phenom 2.0GHz: 5830
Athlon64 X2 3.2GHz: 6510
tho' i have no basis for extrapolation.
?
quad core vs dual core, Adam. Can't be calculated accuratly.
-sigh double post
There is result for 2.0GHz dual dual-core opteron which scores 5162. So Phenom is 13% faster per clock then dual dual-core opteron. It correlates well with the previous data about up to 15% IPC improvements over K8.Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
The original source is HEREQuote:
Originally Posted by accord99
Phenom X4 GP-7000(2.0GHz) updated: GP9000
Athlon 64 X2 6400+(3.2GHz)
ATI RD790
GeForce 8600 GTS
Corsair DDR2-1066 1GBx2
And the naming for 4 cores is 9xxx and tri-core 7xxx, so moving it from 7000 to 9000 4-5 days after publishing is not a sign of genuineness.
KTE check out my post in Crysis benchmark thread here:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=20
I think you will find it very intriguing ;),and i know you like to do some detective work yourself :D(it's about the famous minimum fps in CPU part of the "tests" and the low score for Phenom).
I'm too tired for detective work, but I'm ready for more benches than just the standard Crysis stuff... wink wink Expreview LOL... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Yeah thanks for pointing, I read it earlier. Just too tied about. I'm picking up a C2D this coming weekend or soon after and can run those tests. Would've got Phenom if they had some around to test. :( Those scores are really all over the place, which makes me doubt the bench heavily regardless of the outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Is this it? http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/c...emo/18345.html
How CPU dependent is the bench? Sorry I've not looked into the bench.
Yep that's the one,grab the demo and run the bat file in the bin directory.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
BTW,i noticed the benchmark becomes heavily CPU dependent when you force the "physics option" to HIGH(yep,get inside the demo options,set manually what you want,exit and then run the bat file from bin dir.).The CPU usage jumps to healthy 90%.When everything is set to low,my X2 hovers at lowly 60% during the test.And guess what,i also got the 8.86fps at the famous frame 196.
I looked at the "revised" test done by the expreview and now suddenly the Phenom gets 37.6fps as minimum fps in the same CPU test.
dont know if you saw it but cookerjc said they installed the os again, cause they had strange performance issues with the former test.
fake
That Crysis demo is definitely not a quad core bench: http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/Inte...ns/5368-3.html