@ the same settings..... almost no difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by ben805
Compared to fx.....
Printable View
@ the same settings..... almost no difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by ben805
Compared to fx.....
Mr dmo580, as you'd suggested....I'd ran the defrag...notice the background of my previous post?? I'm not cheating you see :D
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...chmentid=30228
Ok, maybe it wasn't fair that I ran both processors at the same speed BUT with different vcore, how about I ramped up the SD to 1.71v in order to match my bro's Venice? fair enough? same everthing!!! ;)
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...chmentid=30229
YEEEESSSSSSSS, the defrag gave me a whooping 5 points!! :cheer: wait a minute...what's up with the lower memory score??
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...chmentid=30230
Don't know what the deal is, my score is getting even lower than before.
Never mind the scores of these reruns, they're depressing! Just wanted to show Mr dmo580 that I was(am) running both cpu on the exact same rig, the one and only thing I changed on these reruns was the SD's vcore, now it idle around 38'C, we all know the temperature probes on these dang thing should not be trusted, so maybe it's running hotter, maybe colder....not sure. But one thing I'm certain is, pumping more vcore to this SD decrease my scores, could HEAT be the issue?!?!
Please keep in mind that I'm comparing the cpu that ME and MY brother got, and to share my finding with you guys here, hopefully we can find out exactly what went wrong with this picture, trust me...I do NOT like what I'm seeing either, I won't RMA unless I know for certain it's defective as well. I hope nobody would mistaken me as trouble-maker and think I'm here to stir things up or here to badmouth the San Diego.
Geforce4ti, my comparison by no mean represent all Venice and San Diego out there, so don't sweat it...it's probably like Andy and Vin mentioned, perhaps it's a TCCD and San Diego thing, maybe software bugs, BIOS need to be update, or maybe I've got a bad chip(defective?) or something, it's almost 4am here so I better get some rest before I go to work in couple hours!!! :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumo
Dumo, VERY interesting, all scores are close including the cpumark99, except the memory bandwidth!! Both cpu have 1MB cache so it looks like the FX has a better memory controller than the San Diego?
So basically my score isn't too far off then?? it would be great if we can compare some more results with the same settings....
I think you're missing the point, what dmo580 is trying to say is that you need to test both CPU's on ONE SYSTEM, NOT 2 systems with the same or identical harware.Quote:
Originally Posted by ben805
While identical hardware may essentially be the same, that doesn't mean it performs EXACTLY the same. We all know that 2 identical CPU's from the same week/plant etc. may not OC the same due to minor differences, those minor differences may (and probably will) affect performance as well.
Hardware manuf. may have made minor changes that you're not aware of thus the results may be different.
2 examples:
P3V4X come in 2 flavors, one with Winbond CG and one with ICS CG.
V8420S come in 2 flavors, one with Samsung memory and one with Etrontech memory, at the same clock speeds the V8420S with Samsung memory scored consistently higher (tested 5 times with different clock speeds) on the same system (Meaning I only swapped the cards, no other changes were made).
I'm not sure about the P3V4X but the V8420S are the same rev.
And I'm pretty sure that even if they both had the same memory there would've been a difference, tho the difference probably would've been smaller.
KILLorBE
I think you're missing my point and looks like I just wasted an hour or so for nothing, I AM running both cpu on the SAME system, same motherboard, same ram, same video card, same psu, same hdd, same everything!! I DO NOT have duplicate hardwares or duplicate rig to run them separately....maybe this will make you understand...
ok....I installed the Venice on my ONE and ONLY machine, benched it, took out the Venice from that ONE and ONLY machine, put the San Diego in, installed heatsink/fan and yes...in that ONE and ONLY machine, then benched again!! there is no separate machine!! EVEN if there is, should I expect my San Diego to breath new life??? if you think that is the case then are you and MR dmo580 suggesting that I should get second motherboard, another pair of memory, another PSU, another case, another pair of raptors, then run this San Diego on the new machine again?!?!?!
:ROTF:
sigggh....
You sure got me confused (I didn't see your previous 2 posts, I was making coffee) because of the different icon's and background, and what's running in the taskbar that isn't running on every run?
http://members.chello.nl/~a.bax1/PCStuff/Venice.jpg
Obviously there are some differences which make me wonder if this is a fair comparison.
IMO you should use a fresh install that's exactly the same for both CPU's.
You compare a Venice @ 318 MHz 2.5-4-3-7 with a San Diego @ 285 MHz 2.5-4-3-7 :D
With not the San Diego @ 238 MHz 3-5-5-10 :D
Your test is not right :(
and the timesQuote:
Originally Posted by KILLorBE
3dmark at 8:02 pm with Venice
3dmark at 8:14 pm with san diego
two different backgrounds, shortcuts, and that icon in the taskbar.
Hehe Dumo,Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumo
I see you've become the unofficial FX55 comparison tester :p:
I'd like to see a FX55@2.6 vs SD 3700@2.6 (with same fsb / timings)...
Theorically they should be the same CPU or not?
This thread gets funnier and funnier with each new post, why is everyone trying to justify the SD's loss, the guy said he did a fair comparison, what has he to gain from bad mouthing the SD he bloody owns one, hes just allowing those of us who havent purchased to see if its justifyable to spend the extra $130+ on a chip for all intents and purposed doesnt really perform any better. Its like some of youalready bought the SD and are trying to justify your buy by disputing ben's results as being fraudulant. Perhaps its a TCCD bug or perhaps its not, fact of the matter is if you need to go to so much trouble to be the damn thing is it really worth the buy. Basically what you guys are saying is that if you really want to beat a venice you need to change your ram mobo and everything else to much higher specs that that which you would normally run a venice on to get the SD to beat it, does that make sense?? I havent bought either yet am still in decision proccess so am impartcial so will buy either which gives best performance. Again I am not saying that the venice is superior to the SD and am myself quite shocked aty these results as i suspected the SD to beat the venice by only a few points not be trailing it by a few points, but this test does make one have to question the reviews done by review sites who compare the 2 chips as to their agenda if the average end user (overclocker) cannot replicate their finding, lets face it not everyone is going to buy both chips and compare them so who is likely to challenge the reviews views.
Still waitin for the 90nm version though...Hopefully by early next week :DQuote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
man people can't read
he said he corrupted his os and had to restore, therfore different icons/times etc...
he said he used same system, ram, mobo etc...
I don't care what he says, it's what I see that I don't like...and I'm not talking about the SD doing such a 'crappy' job compared to the Venice.Quote:
Originally Posted by qui
A fair comparison would be with the same OS, with the same programs running in the background...etc.
If you wan't to compare 2 things you should do it in the same manner, in a fair way, not restore or whatever, do a fresh install, make an image and use the image if things go bad.
There's a difference between wrong and fraudulant, and I don't believe anyone accused him of fraud.Quote:
Originally Posted by qui
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by qui
Nope, because of the other tests I've seen I question the way he did his tests (The OS may be, and probably is, not the same as before the restore).Quote:
Originally Posted by qui
I can read, but can you?Quote:
Originally Posted by JNav89GT
In Post #46 he says:
"I have several acronis and ghost images made just for this reason....quick recovery and to get everything up and running in less than 20min."
Now to my knowledge a fair comparison requires the same OS with the same crap running in the background, this is obviously not the case.
And I don't really care about the time, as there's no date he may have run the other test(s) the next day at about the same time.
I hope I'm reading this wrong, but are you suggesting that he is lying to us because he benched the two chips at different times? If so, PLEASE explain to me exactly how he is supposed to bench two separate chips in a single mobo socket at the exact same time? :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash777
About the different backgrounds and whatnot, as was said above, READ THE THREAD first people! He is using multiple ghosted images of Windows for quick-swapping when he corrupts one.
Geesh....
:slapass:
Instead of looking at the potential problem, you guys are looking for ways to make excuses and try to put the blame on me for not defragging, and accused me of running on separate machine, if being in denial would make you feel much better about it then be my guest and believe in whatever you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash777
Let's say I go along with your doubt and 'pretend' I was running the Venice or SD on a different 'imaginary' machine, so basically what you're trying to tell me is.....my San Diego should perform much better on a different rig!! well...I suppose I should jump on the bandwagon and buy your theory then, maybe I should rather believe my San Diego was being run on a poorer rig, atleast in that case I would feel a little better knowing that I bought a cpu that 'might of' kick the crap out of the Venice IF and WHEN I run it on a supposedly BETTER system or something ...to tell you the truth it's just as hard for me to believe both processors perform equally well, left alone gotten beat!!!
Ben,
Why did you shy away from running sciencemark2. Run Mol dyn for 1024 atoms and the default Primordia. This should clear up the air.
What you need is a program that choke up the cache. DOOM3 is another nice benchmark if you have one.
Thank you, that pretty much sum'ed it up! because YOU...don't like what you see and that's why my San Diego SHOULD perform the way you like it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by KILLorBE
Translation: Don't ever reimage or reinstall your windows, if it corrupted...live with it!! otherwise your cpu performance is going to suck, and run worst than before....and therefore, consistency of these cpu is non-existant. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by KILLorBE
HEY,
RUN SCIENCEMARK2 and lets see what happen.
no, not shy away...but I'm AFRAID to find out what the score going to look like!! "theoritically" the SD should outshine the Venice on Sciencemark, but what IF..just IF... the SD perform the same as Venice, or worst...gotten beat again?? then I gauranteed someone else is going to jump in and called BS again and that would make me look even more stupid LOL maybe I should just leave it as it is and accept the fact that my rig sucks and trust the other review of 3800 vs 3700 or whatever it was instead!Quote:
Originally Posted by agenda2005
Seems to me that the extra cache might just run on at higer latency...BUT the lower 9x multi might inhibit the SD...the Venice might be better suted to it run the Venice at 10x and the SD at 10x then run them BOTH at 2500 2.5-3-3-5 at the same voltage IF POSSIBLE...
Seems to me that your results TRULY reflect what is and I DON"T KNOW HOW PEOPLE CAN THINK THAT THESE WHERE 2 DIFFERNT SYSTEMS IF THEY READ THE THREAD AND DIDN"T JUST JUMP ON IT!!!!! but people didn't do that...they just jumped on it and felt that they had :banana::banana::banana::banana:!!! reasons to justify why the SD was loosing...i will give them credit for catching those few things that mad it seem differnt but i the take it away for no relizing why after putting in that much effort to try to make you look bad...
That is just my .02
Dragon
How about you guys read his freaking posts! God, you would swear that all this people who think they are smart ass computer whiz's would at least have some READING COMPRHENSION. God, are you people morons? READ HIS POSTS! AND IF YOU STILL FEEL LIKE POSTING SOME DUMB CRAP ABOUT THE TESTS BEING RUN AT DIFFERENT SETTINGS THEN YOU SHOULD GO AND FIND A NEW HOBBY BESIDE COMPUTERS, AND GET A HELMET WHILE YOUR AT IT, BECAUSE IF YOUR THAT DUMB YOUR LIKELY TO TRIP AND FALL AND SMASH YOUR HEAD AND DIE, BUT I GUESS THEN IT WOULD BE ONE LESS IDIOT TO DEAL WITH. SO PLEASE, GO RUN AROUND THE BLOCK A FEW TIMES
Also just run the test and see what happens it dosn't matter what all of the other dumb @$$'$ think anyway...they are just tyring to falsley justify the loose of the SD but what they ARNT taking into acount is that this could be a FREAK chance and nothing more...but by looking at the FX55 scores then the SD seems on par...so the only thing that i can thinnk of it maybe a in the mem controlers or that the extra cache has a higher latency that only shows in games that use over 512 not in test that use less then 512 but opperate better with the lower latency...
Dragon
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa
HA HA HA HA!!!! NICE JOB THERE MAN!!!! You deffinitly beat my post lol nice work!!! and i hope that the DUMB people listen and dont try to falsly justify this AGAIN!!!
Dragon
Just to throw a little more fuel on the fire, Nathan from Legit reviews and I did some comparisons between my 4000+ San Diego @ 2.2GHz and 3500+ Venice. The San Diego was just a hair faster in all the tests, except in gaming where there was a slightly larger lead. I'll call him in a bit and have him send over the test data, but here is what I have on hand.
Comanche 4 640x480 Audio disabled:
Both At 2.2GHz (11x200)
3500+ Venice: 72.82 fps
4000+ San Diego: 76.46 fps
Both At 2.9GHz (10x290)
3500+ Venice: 95.46 fps
4000+ San Diego: 99.50 fps
All tests were run with identical memory settings with the same pieces of hardware. 2.2GHz tests were with TCCD @auto while 2.9GHz was OCZ VX 2-2-2-5.