Printable View
Umh...no.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
They were "simulated".You take a lower clocked part and extrapolate.
Anyway , Intel submitted new scores for Clovertown which beat even the simulated 2.6GHz K10.
Spec_Int_rate
5355 : 99.9
5365 : 106
K10 2.6 : 102*
*simulation
Please keep in mind that Spec_rate is the best case scenario for K10 because it makes full use of the superior interconnect technology ( HT vs. FSB ).All other tests will show smaller gains.
You do know K8 already today beats Core 2 with about 20% in that bench?Quote:
Originally Posted by alayashu
And specfp_rate/specint_rate is heavily memory intensive. Why do you think there is no dual dualcore K8 in the benchresults? Its because it would own the K10 due to more memory bandwidth.
It would be like showing DivX encoding with a penryn..and only that.
this has been said many times, the _rate benches do depend on memory BW,Quote:
And specfp_rate/specint_rate is heavily memory intensive. Why do you think there is no dual dualcore K8 in the benchresults? Its because it would own the K10 due to more memory bandwidth.
as they use all the cores of the system (thus the more cores the more it
depends on the BW, just like in real world). But saying it is a pure memory
benchmark is naive from you. The _rate are the right benches for multicore
systems, if i need to say it again...
they should be about equal clock/clock in the fp_rate, maybe you should redoQuote:
You do know K8 already today beats Core 2 with about 20% in that bench?
the bench again, as it looks like some chips get more power with time, as seen above :P
Anyway, why do i have the feeling we discuss the same things over and over? :)
one more month to go, maybe at a certain booth on Siggraph we'll learn more;)
http://www.generation-3d.com/UserImg...big-family.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Dailytech
:up:
Well to be able to see what really the CPU can achieve we have many kind of benchmarks, some CPU's can achieve higher scores on a determined test but the overall performance is quite different.
Do you want to, say, read the title instead of cheerleading AMD?
red, it's just powerpoint presentation under NDA
read (if you can) it carefully ))
What does it say?Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
1. Why do you post the K8 vs Woodcrest graphs?Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
2. I read it, and there is only 3 (One a reprint of an old one) interresting parts where barcelona is. There is nowhere else in the slides its there with performance numbers.
Inquirer says "systems using tge Opteron 2356"
There is no word about Opteron 2356 in that presentation.
So why you guys still link them together?
It's really simple. http://vd.verysell.ru/files/ie/252_1...ion_PUBLIC.ppt this has been just recently circulating. INQ copied. In the INQ's article, it's clear they're talking about slide 71,72. Theo also babbled about slide 70 even though we've already seen it and even though we've already known it's 2.6GHz.
http://i8.tinypic.com/52wg50p.png
It would be a big coincidence if they somehow improved 2.3GHz to perform like old 2.6GHz at the same 21% rate. But I digress, believe what you want, merry July 4th.
And the 2356 is nowhere present but it's obvious they put 1 (recent surfaced model numbers) and 1 (the 2.3GHz on slide 71,72) and called it the 2356.
Another one on the specint_rate2006
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=567
Sad we have so much FUD today :(
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/images/int...-quad-core.png
sad we have such lame comparisons everywhere....Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
its getting really boring, time for AMD to release K10
tired of everyone claiming this and that, time for some hard numbers, i don't care if it are good or bad numbers
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/rint2006.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
If you consult the table you will see that that score of 101 is achived by a Dual xeon X5355 machine.
I´am not understand nothing. Starting with AMD graphic that is very confusing :lol:
Quote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
If you read the footnote of the AMD figure, you will see dual-cpu quadcore :shrug:
http://multicore.amd.com/GetFile.asp...trate_040207v2
Oh, please. Go to AMD's own page:Quote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
http://multicore.amd.com/us-en/AMD-M...rformance.aspx
and you will see that AMD has clarified it's own comparison. Read the fine print at the bottom of the slides.
Of course, the idea that this was anything but a dual socket against dual socket comparison is ridiculous, but I guess there is no limit on the ridiculous statements some fanboys will make if you don't spell everything out.Quote:
Dual-CPU Quad-Core AMD Opteron processor estimates based on internal AMD simulations at 2.6GHz
Lack of brainpower is the culprit...Quote:
Originally Posted by Periander6
Have you Intel droids (and the zdnet genious) notice that those results are with different SOs and of course with different compiler?
-AMD page results are with: WINDOWS SERVER 2003 64bits -32bits spec version- Intel Compiler v9.1 IA32. Here is 84.8 dual 5355 spec page http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...219-00524.html
-Zdnet genious and venerable IT picked results are with (btw not to mention they are from june, AMD page is from april), OK with: SUSE LINUX Enterprise Server 10 64bits, Intel compiler IA32/EM64T v10.0 Here is 101 dual 5355 2.66ghz spec page http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...612-01275.html and here is 106 dual 5365 3.0ghz spec page http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...528-01175.html
How somebody can compare benchs with different SOs and compiler? I know, nonsense fanboys.
Do you even know how the configuration for the other systems AMD used in the comparision?Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
http://www.amd.com/us-en/BenchmarkPl...117239,00.html
I guess its ok for AMD to use 64bit on the K8 vs 32bit on the Woodcrest?
And whats this, now the compiler cant be used? Thats like saying all 2900XT benchmarks with newer better performing drivers is unfair.
And its not like they used the best one for Intel is it, even with the 9.1 compiler and 32bit.
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...402-00728.html (just example, not sure its the best)
i'm not going to waste time with zealots. But again, Linux. Not windows. And of course compiler do differents, and more with different OS.
Who is the zealots, you don't even click on shintai link. So as you're too lazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
AMD benchmark configuration information for such kind of comparison:
# 2 Xeon 5355 processors in FSC Primergy RX300 S3, 16GB memory, 73GB SAS disk drive, Microsoft Windows®Server 2003 x64 Enterprise http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...219-00524.html
# 2 AMD Opteron™ processors Model 2222 SE in Tyan Thunder n4250QE motherboard, 8GB memory, 80GB SATA disk drive, SuSE Linux® Enterprise Server 9 SP3 http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...319-00684.html
# 2 Xeon processors 5160 in FSC PRIMERGY TX300 S3, 16GB memory, 73GB SAS disk drive, Windows® 2003 Server Enterprise Edition SP1 http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...122-00249.html
# 2 Xeon 5355 processors in FSC Primergy RX300 S3, 16GB memory, 73GB SAS disk drive, 64-Bit SUSE LINUX® Enterprise Server 10 http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...219-00523.html
# 2 AMD Opteron™ processors Model 2222 SE in Tyan Thunder n4250QE motherboard, 8GB memory, 80GB SATA disk drive, SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 9 SP3 http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...319-00685.html
# 2 Xeon processors 5160 in FSC PRIMERGY TX300 S3, 16GB memory, 73GB SAS disk drive, 64-bit SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10
And again in the barcelona simulated comparison, if you take about 3s to read the footnote:
http://multicore.amd.com/GetFile.asp...trate_040207v2
you read:
"competitive benchmark results stated above reflect results published on www.spec.org as of april 16. 2007. The comparison presented above is based on the best performing blabla... "
Best performing... Nowhere best performing using this and that blabla, just best performing, they don't care of os or compiler, they only take the "best performing"
What part of "best result" is too hard for you to comprehend ?Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
Maybe you should worry more about your problems than calling others zealots.
what is a zealot?
Religious fanatics. Google is your friend.