My point was that Intel can and will drop prices on Penryn to keep the price/perf ratio on their court.Quote:
Originally Posted by iandh
Please elaborate on the "cleaner" notion.
Printable View
My point was that Intel can and will drop prices on Penryn to keep the price/perf ratio on their court.Quote:
Originally Posted by iandh
Please elaborate on the "cleaner" notion.
Even if Intel cut prices, their hands are rather tied as they phased out their sweet spot CPU (9450).
Wolfdale 3M takes a 10% performance hit in gaming compared to 6M. Yorkfield 6M should have the same hit WRT 12M.
They HAVE to cut prices to make the 9400 even competitive with the 920 (which should be at 230-250) that probably beats it due to the cache.
Now 9550 vs 940 is more subjective, as perf/clock is better on the first when tested with DDR3-1866. It all depends on the pricing. AMD has pitted the 940 against the Q9400 and 9300 in marketing slides, which means that pricing is around that vicinity, probably slightly over or undercutting the 9400's 270USD.
The 9550 is still a good deal as it stands, but once newer revisions (even with the same stepping/new stepping) of the P-II roll out with better silicon performance and better OCabilities (now cold bug is resolved entirely, no need for 1Ghz HT anymore on the new revs) the 9550 will actually lose quite some of its lustre.
Platform wise we'll see. If what AMD's implying about using Lucid Hydra in RD890 is true, and if the end result is great (not really needing nVidia's cooperation, just ATI and Lucid themselves making a better MGPU solution) then you bet people will switch to the new platform because it offers something that even the LGA1366 platform doesn't.
AMD uses 45 NM Light imm... something SOI production tech = Lower cost than intel quads.
Amd also gets less "waste" cpu's by doing triquads.
How effective the fabs are compared to intel is out of my knowledge, but well, any1 got numbers of DIE surface on both ? if they are simular amd got it nicely done this time and giving intel some serious compotition.
I
Actually a SOI wafer costs quite a lot more then a standard bulk silicon wafer intel uses. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by imsochobo
But since noone know how the yield on intels 45nm Ci7 nor on AMDs 45nm Deneb is, its kinda uesles to talk ybout such things as production costs.
Ok. Following is a description of my hardware addiction:Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
The AMD chips I currently have in my possession are: X2 3600+, 4000+, 5000+ BE, Phenom 8450, and Phenom 9950.
The intel chips I currently have in my possession are: (had) E2180, E5200, E7200, E8400, Q6600.
For AMD mobos I have a Biostar Tforce550, and Biostar 790GX. For intel, Gigabyte P35 DS3L, and MSI X48 (dead).
I have three different sets of DDR2 800 memory. One G.Skill 2x2Gb, one Corsair XMS 2x1Gb, and one Kingston value 2x1Gb.
For GPU's I have (had) an evga GTX 260 core 216, (had) Visiontek 4850, (had) Visiontek 4870 512, and my current card, Powercolor 4870.
I have played with nearly every conceivable configuration of this hardware, and the "cleanest" or "smoothest" (evidently BS from what I hear) running setup out of them all has been my 790GX/9950/4870 combo. That means least stuttering, best framerate stability, least crashes (stock or OC), least trouble with driver errors, least trouble with hardware changes.
Why is this?
Could be:
1. Mobo peculiarities
2. Ram peculiarities
3. Defective CPU's (umm not likely)
4. An all AMD platform runs better (dunno, maybe)
5. Luck of the draw?
I prefer my Phenom/790GX over my Q6600/P35 in gaming, whether stock or OC'ed. It just seems to run games smoother. Although the average framerate is lower, I seem to get better framerate stability.
Some may say I am imagining it or spouting BS, but I most certainly do not feel that I am.
I am not necessarily saying that AMD or intel is "better" for gaming, all I am saying is "Here is the hardware I have, and here is what I consider to run the best out of the hardware I currently possess"
The funny thing is that I am not the only person I have seen have the same experience, so either we are all imagining it, or there is something going on that can't easily be shown with benchmarks and graphs. ;)
many people have said it is smoother and the only people i have seen turn it down are people who prefer intel. and the people that are saying it is smoother are mostly people that are neutral and have had experiences with both platforms. i can't say for myself if it is smoother or not but if you look at the design it makes sense. there is no way you can show this on paper that it is smoother its only something you can learn by word of mouth. and if it is smoother then imo its better for gaming. many people refuse to believe this but hey most of those people have never even ran amd before.
might as well avoid that subject. It always leads to flames.
I would say lets be patient with this topic , as more people start switching from Intel to Amd , they will experience the difference them selves.
I don't understand how this information cannot be captured in Fraps.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
how so? i guess if you took videos of both and compared them together it might work. but the best way to tell is by comparing them side by side. and there are many people that have tested this and have said that it is smoother. so you would just have to trust them. kinda want to avoid this topic since as g0ldbr1ck has said it will just lead to flames.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Lone_Wolf_
Fraps does not record stuttering and framerate drops, it records average framerate.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Lone_Wolf_
some people use the video capture although still it will be compressed and it is best to view them side by side.Quote:
Originally Posted by iandh
Far from stable, or even benchable but a scuicide screeny that makes me smile
Running crucial basilisk (love this ram want it to have my children one day) 1.5v runnint 4569mhz 1235 HT 2470 NB and 658 memory....once again still on air. Apologies for abscense went on vacation, then have been spending many tedious hours aiming for highest clock on lowest volts.
AS I SAID, FAR FROM STABLE, IT'S A SCUICIDE SCREENIE
W00t!...very nice!!...:clap::clap:
iocedmyself, have you searched for your prime stable limit on this chip (on air?)
Impressive clock! :clap::clap::rolleyes:
How cold AIR was for this run?? Room temperature or you used little winter help? :D
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...eneb/3D_05.jpg
CPU AMD on LN2.
Dante80, honestly as people are usually crying for superPi 1m scores i've kinda veered from trying prime to often other then as a curiosity of my own, have finished 4 core run at 4.3ghz in prime if i recall correctly will have to give that another go here after i recover from new years eve. :D
Sometime in the next week (granted i can get all the cooling together) i'm hoping to have everything underwater (4870x2 cpu, ram, chipset and southbridge) with a chiller in the loop, as well as do some good old fashioned TEC testing ;) on a 790FX/750sb board. Though the ram under water isn't really top priority as i already am in love with this ram. $43 for 2x2gig of 800mhz 4-4-4-12 1T @ 1.8v in last screeny was running 5-5-5-15, and taking timings out to 6-6-6- and 24 or something and pushing voltage to DDR1 era 2.44 i've gotten it past 1450mhz. Though i wouldn't try to push it that hard for long as it started getting cuddy past 1350 as it prolly got a bit toasty....
even so...
BEST RAM EVER :up:
Lightman, i wish i could have a little winter help but i live in houston,tx...winter here usually means the 60's and people acting as if the next ice age is in effect :p: hehe actually have been testing in a bit lower temps, down from 23-24c to 19-20c so nothing to drastic just closed heat vent in test room.
Anyway, i need to get some sleep and test later, just wanted to bring in the new year with a bit of shiny hardware bliss and share it with all of you :D
when amd users start talking about "responsiveness/smoothness" of their amd gaming rig compared to intel ones, people respond by saying amd users start hallucinating/spewing bs to justify their rig having a better gaming performance that doesnt necessarily show on benchmarks/graphs.Quote:
Originally Posted by iandh
the best way to do this to try to qualify/quantify these "feel" thingy which is very subjective.
since you have both intel and amd rigs, you are in the best opportunity to perform this. im not suggesting/asking you do this, just saying maybe if you want to make this "objective", you can actually do this.
this is what i have in mind:
1. load 2 or more games on intel/amd rig.
2. run fraps or equivalent utility.
3. alt-tab on different games.
4. observe drop in fps if theres any.
5. vary timing on alt-tabbing.
6. upload the result.
then people can see it for themselves which one is 'smoother/more responsive' machine.
just make sure you label the correct video matches the right rig lol.
just my 2 cents. btw, im pro amd ;).
Thats even more impressive man, thanks for the prompt answer...now, go get some rest...:clap::clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by iocedmyself
ahh i love to see you hype up the ballistix like that, i just ordered 8gb for $84 :)
your "test" is nothing more then a artifical stress test for the memory sub system of a cpu. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by sundancerx
Guess who will win this. :rolleyes:
For my personal experience there was no more "smoothness increasment" after my first A64 X2, all other CPU i ever had since then never felt more smooth or slower or what else then the X2.
hmm, i dont really have extensive knowledge about cpus, so i really dont know if that would be true. if it is true then without even going through the tests, we have quantified/qualified that "smoothness" on phenoms is no longer relative/subjective but can be objectively attributed with phenoms having better memory sub system design compared to intel cpu's -except i7's i supposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
you agree on this?
second, i assume i7's having "smoother feel" also compared to penryn's. any i7 owners can attest to this? esp those who upgrade from penryn's?
edit:btw, as i said im no expert and in no way im trying to sound one. just trying to offer my 2 cents as everytime i read someone mention smoothness, everybody freaks out. and its not just this forum, ive read it across multiple review sites. so...
Even better: If someone has machines with various brands of CPU they can make a type of benchmark that CAN be measured and repeated. If they ADD other benchmark(s) at the SAME TIME then they can create some interesting Xtreme conditions. They could try to find something that slows down one machine but not the other AND is repeatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by sundancerx
For example: What happens on various CPU if you are running Prime95 WHILE playing a game? Does it make one system bog down and the other doesn't even notice? Does the Prime95 go slower?
If you run 4 threads of Prime95 (perhaps 8?), a game benchmark, and everything works without problems... then add something else like a virus scanner. You can keep adding different things that use up various resources one at a time until either one or both machines slow down. Then back off a bit and see if you can determine which machine had problems first. It this process is repeatable then you have found a method to determine "smoothness".
Of course if one brand works better than the other when this process is done... you can expect some people to claim: "I never run all of that stuff at the same time so it doesn't matter to me." However if this kind of thing can be measured AND proven then it is definitely something to consider.
The problem is that this type of "Xtreme" benchmark is not easy to find. In fact various people have already tried the 4xPrime95 + Game test. We didn't really see any differences between brands. So the hypothetical "slowdown" would take a lot of work to actually find and will require more work.
EDIT: BTW: I do actually expect this process to happen... but it very probable that it will be done by somebody testing between the new Intel i7 and and older Intel chip of comparable speed.
My CPU history beginning from P4 and skipping everything before 2000Quote:
Originally Posted by sundancerx
P4->X2->C2D/(A64 for HTPC)->C2D 45nm quad->C2D 45nm->Ci7
Ever since I switched from a P4 to a X2 there never was a feeling that is was more smoother even from dualcore C2D to quad core Ci7.
The only thing i noticed and made a habbit of mine, is that if os older then 6month it tends to get boged down by software installs and all the garbage that accumulates. So i reinstall my my os every 6-8 months (coincidently the last 2 years i buy new hardware every 6-8 months :p:).
I dont see how this will prove anything, if you run max threads of prime on a quad core and then start a game every system will output less fps, it doesn't matter if its intel or amd or any other cpu.Quote:
Originally Posted by keithlm
As a matter of fact, i just benched a similar thing on my Ci7.
Running Boinc with 8 threads and benching crysis costs me ~2fps on avarage and 4fps on the min fps as compared to when i only run crysis alone.
But a note: boinc runs as low priority process so if i would run prime which has normal priority it will hurt the game even more.
By your defenition Ci7 would be smother then K10 be default, cause it can handle more threads better due to HT.
This whole "Smoother Myth" (yes i call it a myth cause i never expired it even though i had my share of expirience a lot of processors) is in my eyes more related to other things then just the cpu.
Imho the most important factor is the HDD, i have played around with some SDD and my old Notebook (Singelcore P-M 1,6GHz 1GB RAM) that had an old slow ass 4200rpm drive. Holy moly i never thought how responsive this old thing could get just by upgrading the HDD. :shocked:
Another thing is RAM, you never can have enough ram, when the system starts swapping it slows down.
lets stay on topic if you want to find a way to test for how smooth something is then make another thread.