why does a 4.2ghz 1055T not count? the only issues weve seen in the AMD section is on motherboards having a tough time turning turbo off, but those chips still reached 4.3+ghz on the turbod cores
Printable View
why does a 4.2ghz 1055T not count? the only issues weve seen in the AMD section is on motherboards having a tough time turning turbo off, but those chips still reached 4.3+ghz on the turbod cores
Both are overclocked to 4.2Ghz.I already explained to you that Bloomfield is no regular Quad Core,it's 8 thread SMT design with ginormous cores! Thuban's cores are minuscule mice that achieve on average 22% less perf. while being 48% smaller(and that's Deneb Vs Bloomfiled,not Thuban Vs Bloomfield!).Thuban is not weak at all. It's strong in MT workloads thanks to 6 physical cores and strong in poor threaded workloads thanks to Turbo.Just compare it to regular quad cores without SMT(or even Dunnington!) and it will crush them silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
So youre xtrapolating 920 performance to 960 (overclocking) and at the same time tell us to throw away overclocked 1055T result ?Quote:
I am not comparing 960 to 1055T directly, but extrapolating how 920 compares to 1055T based on that. And I see 920 wins.
And the fact that 920 is discontinued,and the fact that even not taking this into account 920 costs more like a 1090T ?
Well newsflash, nehalem is more potent than phenom architecture :P we all know this, but everything boils down to pricing/platform cost and longevity.
And as informal said, Every core in nehalem is much bigger than phenoms, so amd puts more cores, intel is using HT (which costs die space too)
and AMD smaller but real cores.
Again, each processor core in nehalem is bigger and more potent, so core per core amd cores are weaker.But amd puts more of them, and thats whole cpuQuote:
And explain how a 920/930 quad core @ 4.2 can perform as well as a hex core @4.2GHz without the hex being called weak.
So when you compare cpu to cpu, they are being pretty much equal.If 1090T would lose to i7 920 than you could say that 1090T is weaker opponent :)
What's even funnier ,not counting the disparity in L3 cache amounts (and size differences) in Thuban and Bloomfield ,you get this for logic die space used : 4x 24.5mm2=98mm2 for Bloomfield and 6x15.3mm2=91.8mm2 for Thuban. I made a mistake,Thuban/Deneb's cores are not 16.3mm2,they are even smaller :p:,15.3mm2(chip-architect.com). Thuban actually still has less total dedicated die space for cores when compared to Bloomfield..
I've just posted quick benchmarks of the 1055T in the AMD section.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=331
Sry but who gives a crap about the size of the logic part of a cpu... everyone who buys cpus, be it private consumer or big omes only care about performance/prize/power consumption and choose accordingly.
Plus its no secret, that increase in performance comes with increase in transistor count, which results in increased die size... diminishing return 101...
The X6 is quite tempteting... its very easy to build a basic(cruncher) X6 setup for less the 450€.
But there are still so few benchmarks... embargo drooooopp nowwwww!!111
These are amazing CPUs for their performance/price ratio in multithreaded apps. Would make some very good crunching processors. Intel will still be king in single threaded apps, though. Although the gap is a lot closer with that awesome turbo function. Seems to be far superior to Intel's version after reading this thread: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=249606
you seem very AMD protective :),Quote:
Why does AMD have to incorporate tech. intel uses in their chips and why do you think it would work well enough on 10h uarchitecture? With 6 physical cores,AMD does not need SMT in their chips since in true MT workloads these cores will perform great(you can expect great speedup with apps that support 4+ threads).
People will literally lick these chips anyway,with the great stock clocks and power bands,native HW based Turbo ability,backwards compatibility,awesome OCing abilities,low temps,no coldbugs for xtreme OCing,great starting pricing from AMD etc. All the reasons for great success(yes )
that is allright,
didn't mean anything against the company,
was just looking from a DC (distributed computing) pov where HTT do count..
the cinebench 11.5 results are very impressive compared to the I7 960, and that is not even the 1090T.
of course it is a 4.2 OC'ed CPU, yet AMD has shown amazing results on they're MC chips vs the becky's and 6/12 HTT 3.33 X5680 xeons, which is (was) and still is, an amazing come back from that company.
HTT cannot really be compared to native cores, and if these CB results are trust-able, then these chips are the-thing-to-buy for any normal, non-HTT multi-core demanding task.
we'll have to see how well it perform on the DC field, yet it looks very promising.
by the way,
AMD is planning on going HTT (with it's own naming at least) at 2012 (and 64 thread platforms :) YAY).
That's what I'm thinking as well. Intel has worked on new microarchitectures that increase per-core performance but also increasing core size, while AMD doesn't do that as often and therefore can increase cores at a faster rate as well as have more cores for a certain TDP and price.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Interestingly, in 2003, the K8 core was significantly larger (~45%) than the Banias core (both at 130 nm), but since then, AMD has made one microarchitecture revision that increases core size (K10), while Intel has made two (Core, Nehalem). Now the K10 core is slightly smaller than a Westmere core, and next year the 32 nm K10 will be about half the size of a Sandy Bridge core.
I got my X6 1090T BE for $175 US, Intel will have a hard time beating that for value xD
edit:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&postcount=22
I don't care one bit about die size, SMT capability, popcorn on the rocks etc. and as Hornet mentioned neither does anyone else who is not thinking with his fanboy outfit - even though 960 is larger (as you say, I didn't even check that..) it still uses similar power that a weaker 1055T does.
At this point I am hoping 1055T would be between 960 (quad) and 980 (hex cores), not below 960 in everything.
What I see, from albeit limited and mostly useless benchmarks, is this:
Cine R11.5
- Phenom 1055T @2.8GHz scores 4.96
- i7-860 @2.8GHz scores 5.06
Everest CPU benches
Not even worth mentioning, i7-960 puts the 1055T in such a dust, I'm still thinking something was wrong with those tests.
Seriously, if <i7-920/930 performance is what 1055T gives, it's too little.
Why don't you just buy an i7 and be done with it? If cinebench and everest is what you need to judge a perf. level of a CPU then look no further ,i7 is your pick. If on the other hand you have some real applications you are using that support/benefit from more cores,you may request a test from a user with Thuban and i7.
The early reviwe and several user review already show, that X6 is in the same ballpark as a simillar clocked i7 (8xx,9xx) in real apps that are heavly multithreaded like encoding (TMGPEnc, x264).Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
This is also reflected in the price, the X6 T1055 is placed between the i750 (which is no match for the T1055) and i860 which he basically ties with. Amd has nothing to give away for free, if the T1055 would outperform the i860 AMD would at least charge the same for the T1055.
But for 40€ less the X6 T1055 is the winner against the i860. I wonder if intel will introduce a new i8xx SKU to counter the T1055.
Why on earth would a $200 (US) CPU be between a 960 and a 980X? :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
and why on earth are you whinging about the 1055T, when it's the 2nd lowest binned X6 in the entire range. The 1090T is the top binned model, and is priced, and should perform somewhere in the range of the 860/930 all things considered ( slightly faster MT, slightly slower Single threaded) but given MT is becoming the more important factor, be happy it's priced so "low"
[edit] . good question Hornet.. I feel the 1055T is in a bit of an odd spot between the 750 and 860. I think we're forgetting the 1075 model though
I want it to be so I wouldn't have to buy 980X (or a Xeon hexcore) ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
BTW, for the 10th time probably... between a 920/930 and 980X!
I guess it has to be super cheap/cost like 100$,supported on lowest end/cheapest boards,perform nearly the same as 1K$ Gulftown/top bin QC i7 and on top of that you get a Radeon 5xxx card of your choice,of course free of charge :p: . I bet ,even then,some would argue that it's not good enough...
edit: I've just seen the results in AMD section where a 4.3Ghz Thuban is 18% slower in x264 benchmark(2nd pass) compared to 4.3Ghz Gulftown.... And that is a 1055T OCed,a 200$ worth chip performing 18% slower than a 1600$ OCed X5680...
You know that you are positioning an 200$ chip between 570$ and 999$ ones ?Are you sane ?Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD View Post
Why on earth would a $200 (US) CPU be between a 960 and a 980X?
I want it to be so I wouldn't have to buy 980X (or a Xeon hexcore).
Even 300$ 1090T is MUCH MUCH cheaper.Thats just silly.
And no, no x6 PHII is going to compete with 980X.But you re paying A LOT LOT less.
Unfortunately, it is also at the same performance as 4.2GHz i7-920. That makes it weak.
Thanks for helping me prove the point ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Actually its faster per clock than i7,since the result in the table for QC i7 is at 4.33Ghz ;). You do need better reading glasses though :)
So it beats the QC i7 in perf. and perf./$ and lags behind the Gulftown by 18% in pure perf. but wins by a ginormous margin in perf./$. (we are talking about a projected price of 200 bucks for 1055T,BUT we have one user who bought his 1090T for 176$ already!)
Yeah, but i havn't seen any benches form the 1075 till now, but i guess with 3ghz stock clocks it will be faster in most scenarios then the i860 or the 920.Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
And whats all that bs that the X6 should compared with the Hexas from intel.
@informal if you haven't noticed your exact link points out, that a 920 or in any case also a i860 has approx (+/- 1-1,5%) the same score as a X6 at the same clock.
So it doesn't really beat QC i7 in performance but is on par with it (as I already mentioned). AMD is not that stupid to sell there stuff under value.
What is interestening is, that i have checked some prices on the i7 920 and the X6 T1055 and they sell practically for the same price ~200€. I guess there will be some price drops for the T1055 so it will get cheaper then 920 and when the T1075 comes i guess it will settle right above the 920, price wise and also performance wise.
It is clear in the data that within a few percent they are on par, probably going back and forth, but per clock also needs to add per core. From a purely technical perspective the results say two things in my opinion. First, it really speaks volumes about the lead Intel has on the instruction efficiency at the core level, it takes 6 AMD cores to come up to 4 Intel cores. Second, it shows how well AMD has been able to come up to get a competitive part on the market over the past year and half or so (they have been executing much better).Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
In the long run, the idea of core, clock, turbo, or hyper-threading will blur and people will do what they should be doing all along -- focus on the actual output of the product.
This is probably the 4th or 5th time I have said this, but the 1090T looks to be the next Q6600 or i920 for the enthusiast. It will be a rock'n CPU.
Jack
Nevermind......Quote:
Originally Posted by alfaunits
I was on the fence between Thuban and Core i7 for a dedicated media encoding machine, but went with the latter. Picked up an i7 at the Microcenter a couple of weeks ago. Why? Because it is a mature, cheap, and stable platform even at relatively higher overclocks; (no I didn't pay $1600 for the processor, I paid $180 for it), and overclocked to a stable 4.2GHZ, I am right up there with any 6-core thuban, and I'm 24/7 stable.
Why didn't I go Thuban?
1. Even though some of the overclocks of Thuban seem impressive, I wanted a relatively easy and proven overclock of 4.2GHZ (with HT), 24/7. I was yet to see a stressed Thuban at 4.2GHZ. Anything below that was just out of the question, considering I'll have to pay more for a 1055T in my case.
2. It seems there are issues with the Thuban and turbo, some mobos just can't shut it down. What this means is that some can't clock much above 4GHZ because once Turbo kicks in, CRASH! Plus, I have already expressed my suspicion of TURBO CORE as rushed, and badly done. So some of these problems only confirm my suspicion. There's also the issue of the low multi of the 1055T and how much the HTT bus can be pushed to achieve that 4.2GHZ overclock I'm so anal about.
3. It'll be nice to stake some claim to the hexacore mania (damn you Intel!) but we all know Intel's hexacore offerings are priced through the roof. But what's the point, if 4 cores can actually do the work of 6 in MT and are really faster in everything else? I think that's the point that pushed me over the fence onto Intel's side. AMD needs six cores to compete with Intel's 4 (HT just means those four cores are capable of working even harder) in everyday scenarios, on top of that AMD chips have an overall lower overclock ceiling in non ln2 cooling scenarios, in other words 24/7 overclock scenarios, consume more power for same work done (something that TURBO CORE doesn't help because AMD has no power-gating), and x58 boards are just better built with better VRMs and whatnot (placebo effect?) and can actually support 4.5GHZ 24/7 overclocks. My $189 GA-EX58-UD3R Rev. 1.6 is a solid board literally and visually and is well supported by Gigabyte. So for performance/price you can do the math. In my particular experience, even though Thuban looks like a bargain, the i7 920 + Gigabyte combination is actually unbeatable, especially considering that there's headroom in the chip above 4.2GHZ.
Please don't flame me. I'm only speaking from my own experience and observations and reasons why I chose the i7 over Thuban. It's not to say that Thuban is necessarily a bad thing, I just think focusing on MT benchmarks is not painting the entire picture, and actually makes the Thuban look the one-dimensional chip it is because that is the only environment it can compete well. This is based on real-world data, as even with turbo implementaion, it seems Thuban only shines in specific rendering benchmarks and not in gaming for example, even against deneb where one would think the advantage of turbo should give it an edge.
Edit: Too late! \/
^ I've seen your pre-edit post. Trollandary!
And it's obvious that you didn't consider Thuban when you confronted JF-AMD directly like an Intel shareholder, now you're throwing some reasonable but obviously contrived justification.
informal, $ me :D
waff out wowd
@ohnoes the cpu for 180$ was good, but the motherboard is a good 50-100$ higher than what you needed to spend on the AMD platform for the same overclock. and depending on which chip u have, your gonna be getting 3 sticks of ram instead of 2, sure its the same price per GB, but will that extra 50$ make any difference? so as a total platform cost, its easily 100$ more for the intel system, (or 25% of the total cost, 400 vs 500$), so i would hope you can get 25% more perf out of it. (or if you look at the complete cost of the PC, PSU, case, HDD, etc, then it might only be 10% more expensive)