It won't be enough clock/clock against K10 derivatives.Especially for quad core ones.
Printable View
It won't be enough clock/clock against K10 derivatives.Especially for quad core ones.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
A CPU score of 5000 for a 3.2Ghz kentsfield? A 2.93Ghz Quad scores 4000.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2...50/3dm-cpu.gif
And a 3.43Ghz is 4500.
http://www.computerpoweruser.com/edi...09%2F09c09.asp
Did you just make an ups informal?
LOL.
post 1: Penryn shows no improvement!
post 2: Penryn shows MASSIVE 10%+++++ gaines!@!!!11111oneoneone
So, which benchmarker cheated?
Yeah massive 10% on average is really amazing,i am amazed by Penryn,zomG.
On average it's ~9.2% faster clock/clock(with that 115% test) and ~7% without it.
BTW Wolfdale@2.33Ghz scores 2118 in CPU mark test in mark06,while Conroe e6600(2.4Ghz) scores 2111(techreport). It's ~3 faster ,zomG.
I think informal is on thin ice :)
Sure i am.You have been walking on it for days in K10 topics,must be a cold feeling :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Why dont you start with finding a 5000+ 3Dmark06 CPU scoring kentsfield.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I can get a 3dmark06 cpu score of 5036 with my qx6700 at 3.6Ghz so I hoping that a quad core penryn can do much better at 3.3Ghz
http://s184.photobucket.com/albums/x..._reencoded.jpg
See this is the fun part. You need 3.6Ghz to do what the other need 3.2...Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
I just did,didn't I?I posted that SS,you could believe it or not.So does the other SS (yorkfileds) mean that it too was a fake?Or it is not real since it must be way faster than C2Q,and in reality it is not?
That OCed C2Q had 1800 MHZ FSB(much higher than Kentsfield in your picture) so it had much better scaling from 2 to 4 cores(81% versus 57% ).Also it was running uber fast RAM @570Mhz(efectively 1040Mhz).And plus it was benched on a probably highly tweaked system(also goes for Yorkfield).
So this is not logical to you?Hmm
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/hwdb.php?ti...iew&rid=837360Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
:D
I know this is a shocker to you. But they do match this!
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2972&p=3
OMG, that was what we all said!!! :eek:Quote:
Obviously we'll reserve final judgments on Penryn for our official review of the CPU, but these initial results look very promising. We would expect to see clock for clock Penryn vs. Conroe improvements to be in the 5 - 10% range at minimum depending on the application. Factor in higher clock speeds and you can expect our CPU performance charts to shift up by about 20% by the end of this year.
So the only one that expected something else must have been you.
What is a shocker?I got the average of 9%(including that large improvement in one test-sse4) looking at that exact review,~7% without that one.
The improvement in other tests(non sse4) is solely thanks to larger L2 and fsb.
No shocker for me,maybe for you since it's a minor improvement over existing(very good) Conroe.
FSB? They use the same FSB little one :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
And try remove all the synthetics now you dont like the DiVX encoding :ROTF:
Oh, and in the one that most of us use..games..it does look pretty well!
Little one??Tin ice indeed.
I said larger L2 and FSB in general,not in that hkepc test(meaning Conroe vs Penryn)
On the serious note ,big guy,the average in games is still around the number which corresponds to larger 6MB of L2.It is good there is an improvement with Penryn,not big in most of the cases,but a solid 5-10%.
I got the average of 9%(including that large improvement in one test-sse4) looking at that exact review,~7% without that one.
If you use that logic, including Minesweeper, Calculator, Wordpad, Firefox for "overall" performance, K8 would be equivalent to P4. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3038&p=8 Or that "on average", A 3GHz dualie is just 3.7% worse than a 2.4GHz quad. Good thing for weighted averages, ignoring of pointless benches, individual workloads :)
The "minor" improvement of 100%+ in encoding and 10-30% in gaming is going to be quite appreciated I thunk.
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2.../comp08_10.jpg There is still gains to be had from X38 and from absolute clock gain (10%+, 3.33 vs 3).
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...o_processors/5Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2795&p=4
And 4 to 6 would be even less.
not identical setups, i think he was just having a play around with the new toy (see memory speed (5:6 vs 4:5) & timings & windows style).Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
any clock for clock improvement is a bonus tbh, i wouldn't mind if penryn was 10% slower clock for clock. those temps posted by red are banana-worthy
10 degree temp drop with 50% extra cache
_b@intel
Yea, IMHO 3D Marks anything is useless for cross platform comparisons since it doesn't compare directly to any Game Engine. Real world commonly used apps matter a lot more to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
Benchmark Yorkfield Performance Advantage
3DMark '06 V1.1.0 Pro CPU.... (score) ..: 21.8%
3DMark '06 V1.1.0 Pro Overall.. (score) ..: 7.6%
Mainconcept H.264 Encoder (seconds) .: 18.0%
Cinebench R9.5 (CPU test).................: 24.9%
Cinebench R10 Beta (CPU test)...........: 25.5%
HL2 Lost Coast Build 2707 (fps) ...........: 37.3%
DivX 6.6 Alpha w/ VirtualDub 1.7.1 (seconds) 111%
If you remove the top, remove the bottom. 18 + 24.9 + 25.5 + 37.3 Divided by 4 for an average of 26.4% average of those tests. I don't know where the 5 to 10% keeps coming from;)
Umm... why is Informal throwing a hissy fit over the performance enhancements in Penryn?! Most people here are impressed with the gains, considering it's mainly a die shrink, but he comes along with childish remarks of "5 -10% zOMG I'm amazed" WTF is wrong with you? It's one thing to be a fanboy, but please, don't act like a tard.
Anyway, a 9% increase on average is quite impressive for a die shrink with minor architectural improvements. Trying to say all that improvement comes from cache is ridiculous, considering 4MB C2Ds are only ~3.5% faster than 2MB C2Ds on average, and that is a 100% increase in cache size. 6MB is only 50% more than 4MB, and considering the law of diminishing returns, I'd be surprised if that extra 2MB accounted for anything more than a 1 - 2% increase in overall performance. Obviously the 'super shuffle' engine and radix 16 helps in certain situations, probably more so than the larger cache size.
All I want to see is Intel45nm vs AMD K10 so I know what to buy, And non of this clock for clock or performance per watt :banana::banana::banana::banana:, I just wanna know which is faster
Intel Sheds Light on "Penryn" Enhancements
http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Sheds...rticle8313.htmQuote:
On the surface, Penryn looks like die shrink of last year’s Conroe micro architecture, but Intel sought additional tweaks to the micro architecture to achieve greater performance at the same clock speeds as Conroe processors.
Says a lot right there!Quote:
Max Power Loading Tools for Vista
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 Power - 83W
Temp - 49C
Intel Wolfdale 2.33GHz ES Power - 59W
Temp - 37C
ooo, must have missed this one. I can't wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
Aren't there any non-disclosure agreements for Penryn benches?
Shold I go with Yorkfield or stick wit Kentsfield (Q6600 ... I think B3 is more Overclokeble than G0,but G0 is cooler)
Intel Prices "Penryn" Xeons! there's more in the link than what I posted.
http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Price...rticle8074.htm
Quote:
PenrynQuad-Core Xeon DP
Model Core Frequency TDP L2 Cache Q4'07 Launch Price
X5460 3.16 GHz 120W 12MB $1,172
E5450 3.00 GHz 80W 12MB $851
E5440 2.83 GHz 80W 12MB $690
E5430 2.66 GHz 80W 12MB $455
E5420 2.50 GHz 80W 12MB $316
E5410 2.33 GHz 80W 12MB $256
E5405 2.xx GHz 80W 12MB $209
this stupid 1333fsb is starting to piss me off, and I don't even own one. With a P35 board you probably have to get the e5420 just to hit 3.7ghz
Ryan
Those are socket 771 Xeons, Harpertown.Quote:
Originally Posted by FghtinIrshNvrDi
Quote:
Originally Posted by FghtinIrshNvrDi
Agreed, and agreed. That does indeed suck. 8x (perhaps 9x?) would seem to me to be where the sweet spot is, but the 7.5x would seem more affordable and therefore would more popular; the 333 totally takes the sails out of overclocking unless there's room in the yorkfield FSB we've yet to see.
As for it being 771, it's probably a fair indication of around where the similar desktop chips will be priced, although there will probably be less options. Perhaps just 9x/10x-EE to start, then 8x edition later?
According to what I've seen 9.5 is the top multi for the xeons
3160/12mb/1333
To play with the xeons the DDR2-800FBDimms will be needed and they havn't been released widely yet..Just 667's so far and those on most boards get limited to 360..
Something I just noticed with the pricing:
X5460 3.16 GHz 120W 12MB $1,172
E5450 3.00 GHz 80W 12MB..... $851
Those prices are per chip, so times 2 and you have $2344.00 a pair for the 3160's and $1702.00 for the 3000's
$642.00 difference between them.
You could almost build 2-3000's for the price of one 3160..
A board is $450.00..Ram is $360.00,PSU is $160-$200.00
Damned close and much more output.
Take another step down to 2830 and you definately can build 2 for the price of one while only losing 330mhz..
E5450 3.00 GHz 80W 12MB $851Quote:
Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss
E5440 2.83 GHz 80W 12MB $690
E5430 2.66 GHz 80W 12MB $455
E5420 2.50 GHz 80W 12MB $316
E5410 2.33 GHz 80W 12MB $256
E5405 2.xx GHz 80W 12MB $209 :up:
Those aint Yorkfield but Harpertowns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Looking on prices of the Xeons and today,. I would guess a 2.66Ghz Yorkfield would cost either ~316$ or ~266$
Really? I would guess:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
EE 3.33ghz yorkfield = ~$1200
3ghz yorkfield = $~850
Q6700 and up fills gap...
2.66ghz yorkfield = ~$450
Q6600 fills gap...
2.33 = ~$260 (launching later)
Remember though, there is supposed to be only 2 yorkfields at launch, and I think if there are more models they will be released later (Q1?) I understand the ES around are 3.33 and 2.33, but I seriously doubt they'll launch a low-end part so soon and with such a gap in-between the two. You know how it goes...milk the high-end, and dribble out the cheaper parts as time goes on. If there is 2.66/2.33 parts, I bet we see them later on ala the Q6600 to the QX6700. If there is a 2.33ghz part (see super cheap yorkfield) that soon...well that's just plain awesome. :)
NO there wont just be 2 yorkfields at launch. Thats 1 or 2 certain idiotic "tech"sites that claimed that based on 2 ES samples. And 3.33Ghz is 999$ again.
Just like ALL clovertowns and woodcrests are replaced with Hapertowns and wolfdale-DPs.
65nm will dump down as 4000 series and below.
And this is selfconflicting too:
530$ 2.66Ghz 65nm vs 450$ 2.66ghz 45nm?Quote:
Q6700 and up fills gap...
2.66ghz yorkfield = ~$450
Singlesocket prices will be significant lower than dual socket prices.
OK, thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Harpertown dated?
http://www3.intel.com/cd/channel/res...eng/342837.htm Click Boxed Server/Workstation Processors >. Nov 11
12MB cache, those are definitely Penryns! Nice find!Quote:
Originally Posted by red
I just wonder why there is a launch date for all the server/workstation processors until Q1'08 but nothing about their desktop counterparts.
Let's hope yorkfield XE launch at christmas is true.
Intel prepares boxed quad-core "Penryn" based Xeon processors for November 11
Intel has set the launch date for its Penryn based quad-core Xeon processor family. The company intends to launch seven new Harpertown based models ranging from 2.0-to-3.16 GHz on November 11, according to a posting on Intel’s reseller webpage. Standard “E” bin and performance “X” bin processors launch on November 11.
Intel Xeon processors carrying the “E” designation feature 80-watt TDP ratings while the “X” bin processors have higher 120-watt TDP ratings. Intel does not plan to launch the low-power “L” models until Q1’08, with two models in the pipeline.
Strangely, Intel never issued a formal announcement for the launch of Penryn nor has the November 11 date showed up on roadmaps. Instead, the launch date popped up on a public webpage for resellers.
Penryn Quad-Core Xeon DP
Model Core Frequency TDP L2 Cache Launch Price
X5460 3.16 GHz 120W 12MB $1,172
E5450 3.00 GHz 80W 12MB $851
E5440 2.83 GHz 80W 12M $690
E5430 2.66 GHz 80W 12MB $455
E5420 2.50 GHz 80W 12M $316
E5410 2.33 GHz 80W 12MB $256
E5405 2.00 GHz 80W 12MB $209
Pricing for Penryn-based Intel Xeon processors begin at $209 for the entry-level E5405 to $1,172 for the top-end X5460. Although Intel set the launch dates for quad-core Xeon based Penryn processors, the company remains silent on the launch date of the desktop and mobile counterparts.
Intel’s Penryn architecture is the next evolution of the Core 2 micro architecture that made its debut with Woodcrest and Conroe processors. Penryn introduces a 45nm fabrication process with a few additional performance enhancements. Most notably, Penryn introduces new SSE4 instructions for enhanced multimedia performance.
Source
i think i might move to amd..
Im not buying outrageously prices ddr3 just to be able to run the fsb for high clocks. 1333 fsb can burn for all I care. People sit here and dog AMD all day, but to me they are the better company for the consumer. Better prices, good performance, and PLATFORM LONGETIVITY!
No penryn dual core is worth me trading up my 3.5ghz e6300 running under 1.35V
The real CPU battle will be Phenom and Nehalem architectures IMO.
That's not going to be a battle. That's called a "slaughter". Phenom is the same architecture as Barcelona, K10, that is to say, IPC on the order of 65nm C2D.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvlUndrWareNome
http://aceshardware.freeforums.org/v...bab43535ddfafd
Johan of Anandtech says I still have a hard timing believing the halflife scores. What makes halflife so special that it accelerates 30% while most games show 10%? There is no SSE-4 in halflife. There is a 10% increase in memory performance, and about 15% higher SSE performance. That can not give a 30% gaming increase as games are hardly carefully optimized for SSE.
Charlie of INQ says I can't talk now other than to say believe it. Really. If anything, this [30% for HL2 same clock] underrepresents the improvements. More when I can.
Ooh
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/hwdb.php?ti...iew&rid=837360
BTW, HKEPC says HL2 is square root heavy and Penryn's improved divider helps.
I'm still thinking the same. Why does half life 2 increases that much and other games are just 10%?Quote:
Originally Posted by red
Well maybe higher cache higher boost. That is definitely strange.
Not at all, just as some other apps are affected differently, so are some games. Some apps and games will have much better gains than others because they will benefit more from the improvements made to Penryn. Stuff not taking advantage will not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
Harpertown launches top to bottom November 11th :eek:
Nice :)..
i will pick up a E5410..
Yeah, if you're getting a server or workstation mobo.Quote:
Originally Posted by ANP !!!
A Yorkfield just reached 486*7 = 3.4 GHz. source
The FSB seems the killer there tho with the low multi :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Theli
Funny picture. I take it this is 4 Yorkfield ES chips and a 1,000 Yuan.
http://www.hcdvd.net/phpBB/upload/Jo...st/45nm/01.jpg
sorry, it is 2 wolfdale and 2 yorkfield!Quote:
Originally Posted by Scimitar
Here's something that caught my eye from Hans de Vries over on Aces.
http://aceshardware.freeforums.org/v...r=asc&start=30Quote:
There are two benchmarks which are specially Intel sponsored for theQuote:
Johan wrote:
Interesting, seems more likely than HPEC's Square root theory to explain this :-)
occasion. DIVX and Valve's Half Life "Lost Coast" demo. These are the
two missing in HKEPC's 6400+/Conroe compare but included in the
Conroe/Penryn article:
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/hwdb.php?ti...400&rid=842214
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/hwdb.php?ti...iew&rid=837360
The Divx results come from the sum_of_absolute_differences instruction
for motion detection. This function should have been in the first MMX
instruction set in 1995 really. Now, in 2007, motion detection belongs in
the GPU in my opinion.....
As far as Half Life-2 is concerned: From all possibilities I assume that a
Last Coast set-size fit in the larger Penryn cache is mostly responsible
for the unusual improvement. I don't buy the shuffle arguments at all.
From extreme tech:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2115086,00.asp
Half-Life 2: Lost Coast is a tech demo from Valve Software that's
actually a playable mini-game. A timedemo was recorded by Intel—
it's an actual gameplay recording rather than the canned graphics
performance test.
So, this allows the benchmarker, Intel in this case, to select a particular
recording in which the set-size/cache-fit gives a more than average
improvement going from Conroe to Penryn because it doesn't fit in 4MB
but does so in 6MB. It's just a question of playing the Last Coast demo
until you find the right scenes to record. Simple enough.
Regards, Hans
and
http://aceshardware.freeforums.org/v...r=asc&start=45Quote:
Quote:
DavidC1 wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
As far as Half Life-2 is concerned: From all possibilities I assume that a
Last Coast set-size fit in the larger Penryn cache is mostly responsible
for the unusual improvement. I don't buy the shuffle arguments at all.
Half Life 2: Lost Coast benchmark test system provided by Intel for the reviewers got 18.9% performance increase with 9.1% higher clock speed in favor of Penryn compared to Conroe. Despite a possible optimization that Intel MIGHT have done.
Half Life 2 benchmark tested by HKEPC showed that at equal configurations(same clock, same FSB), Penryn based core was 31% faster.
Your theory might have made more sense if HKEPC benchmark gained less, but it came out the opposite way.
You've got the wrong numbers (From the 3Dmarc06 test on the same page?)
The right numbers only confirm the hypothesis:
1.000 ==> 1.311 _____ HKEPC: (2,33 GHz/1.333 GHz Conroe DC==> 2,33 GHz/1.333 GHz Penryn DC)
1.000 ==> 1.359 _____ Intel:__ (2.93GHz/1.066GHz Conroe QC ==> 3.33 GHz/1.333 GHz Penryn DC)
1.000 ==> 1.391 _____ Intel:__ (2.93GHz/1.066GHz Conroe QC ==> 3.33 GHz/1.333 GHz Penryn QC)
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/hwdb.php?ti...iew&rid=837360
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2115086,00.asp
Comparing the first with the last we see only a 6% improvement (1.391/ 1.311)
while the clockspeed improvement in the last case is almost 14% for the
CPU and 25% for the FSB so it's clear that the large improvement did not
come from a higher bandwidth or a faster CPU (higher frequency or faster
instructions) But way more likely from the larger cache.
The only difference between the latter two cases is an extra Die in the
package, QC vs DC, Still the relative improvement goes up from 3.5%
to 6%. Why would that be? Well how about having a whole 6MB L2 cache
available for the application while the OS mainly uses the 6MB on the
other die?
So by specifically recording the favorable scenes from the Lost Coast
demo where you find a large improvement (due to a scene size which
then must lay somewhere between 4MB and 6MB) you can create a
benchmark which shows a more than average improvement.
Regards, Hans.
Makes alot of sense. Is this possible?
Yes it is.And Hans is a very respectable guy in MPU design analysis.
all games seem to have gains above average (at least at low resolutions), now let's find some RL workload that does too...
hans is a very respectable guy, but always pro AMD (which I just wanted to mention :D ). anyway he doesn't mention the theory, lost coast being very divider-heavy, which someone brought up on the forums recently.
don't forget: presenting selective information is called marketing, that's the same as AMD's spec_rate BS, nothing unusual.
the only revolutionary thing about penryn may be its power consumption/temperature, but we need more tests to confirm this... (high-k + metal gates may be as great an invention as intel touts them to be)
edit:
a short pod cast about high k and metal gates, nothing new, but great for those who don't like to read much.
"Rob Willoner, a technology analyst at Intel, explains how smaller and more energy-efficient transistors are resulting in faster and more powerful CPUs."
And the Wolfdale just reached 550 MHz * 7 = 3.85 GHz. source
True! On the first part, not so true on the rest. Since Core 2 Duo didn't have any Dents in its Armor, All Intel had to do was take out a few kinks and shine the Armor up some. Penryn was just an Adjustment. Sort of like helping the fastest man in the world shave .11 off of his fastest time in the world. Even Nehalem would only be .3 in that case. Meanwhile, the Competition hasn't broke 9 secs yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
Now, if I wasn't in the middle of getting the wife a Car and some needed home repairs, I'd be all over Quad Core Penryn as soon as it hit the market.
LOL, did Hans invest in AMD stocks?
Same speed and such. Still vast improvements way beyond the caches abilities.
Yeah i am sure ,as others certainly are,that you know way more about MPUs and such than poor Hans.:shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
We know benches, and unless Intel sponsored them all its looking quite well. Just like C2D did.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
It was a rather desperate comment with the MMX association aswell.
Lets not hope he will say anything bad about K10, then you gonna turn on a plate....
Hans became a giant AMD fanboy at some point in the last 2 years, and now everything he writes is propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
Add Kyle and [H] while you're at it LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
I wish all this childish fanboy crap would just 'kin STOP :rolleyes: :shakes:
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/3274/howitzersr9.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Can we stop the fanboy name calling now and have a serious discussion of Penryn?
Absolute BS on your part. Folks can't just give links if those links can't be trusted. The Problem with getting good Penryn News/Info is, can what you're reading be trusted? Example; Sure, but your buddy and you wouldn't say $hit if folks were calling these Guys Intel Fanboys LOL!:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
So if you really want to talk about Penryn, by all means do so?
Zytek_Fan ,never mind Donnie,he does it all the time,nothing new there.Although you made a good proposition about continuing the serious discussion about Penryn,we can't have that since now the main theme is not the Penryn but it sure is Hans,Kyle and others,who no doubt about it, are all amd paid pumpers(sarcasm) and they all work against intel in some grand scheme(sarcasm).
And we have some new MPU design geniuses here(Shintai) who are ready to give some lessons to poor Hans about modern x86 processors.
Thats funny coming from you Informal...as a die hard AMD fan in an Intel thread.
Again..we got benchmarks
It's ironic how you sit here and ridicule others, but in this and the K10 thread that was closed we never saw you actually make any substantial contribution of intellectual merit.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
If it looks like a . . .
http://tyler.warrensphere.com:8080/troll1.jpg
Again Intel PR FTW!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Right...If you think that starting some of the most important news threads about K10 here on XS is no contribution than OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by mstp2009
We all know how much you contrubuted here :rolleyes:
Started WHAT threads? At the VERY best you cut and paste stuff (most from the FUD and INQ - LOL).Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Your comments might be semi-insightful if they weren't just dripping with anti-intel propaganda. It makes EVERY SINGLE THING YOU SAY just sound like, well . . . A TROLL.
As we can all see,you contributed extremely well to this penryn thread.You identified successfully a couple of amd fans(lol) and derailed it well.Now the topic is not penryn any more,what a surprise :rolleyes:
Great contribution :shakes:
Still waiting for you to point out your stellar contributions to the forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
But like a good fanboi, you dodge the subject and point fingers instead of answering questions.
:rolleyes:
Puts on Mod hat:
Gentlemen: Please play nice together..Please?
Takes off mod hat:
The only thing I've seen so far that I beleive is what I saw with my own eyes when running Cinebench10.
Penryn shows app 9% improvement over C2D archeticture at the same clocks.
Look in the Cinebench 10 thread and you'll see what I mean.
Now thats not saying that Penryn is a 9% improvement overall, just in that benchmark. It does say that it's a fair assumption at this point that penryn will be better and in the 5-15% range..
Oh,Zytek_Fan, loved that 'Fanboy Cannon" pic!:up:
Cracked me up!:rofl:
Pay attention guys that a true Gentleman in action!Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Yes, you are so full of it. Nothing's stopping you from your Penryn comments either. Sure, we know it will be something negative. Again, folks in Kyle's own forums disagreed with him big time. Many were banned as well. His comments like;Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
LOL, a "little overclocking" is all you can get with the AMD processor used for this review. Overclock the very overclockable C2D if you like and then the blowout gets worse. Just like a bunch of misinformed folks here. You can set up Games to bottleneck the Video card and Handicap Penryn the same way. Funny Kyle didn't do this when A64 ruled the roost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle
Penryn doesn't hit the market in a Void. If folks cheated for AthlonFX when Conroe clearly kicked the crap out of, if Phenom and Penryn are neck and neck, most folks already know what most Webmasters getting paid more money by AMD will say. NO, not OFF topic and very frickin' relevant.
wow what a bunch of dorks
You know, some AMD PR besides spec rate might not be so bad;) Aren't tired of the AMD says yada, yada, blah, blah, and etc........... news?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan
Puts mod hat back on:
:(
Need I say more?
Takes mod hat off..
Movieman scares me
he would have no qualms about throwing your ass in a cage and throwing peanut shells at you, as you howl in a demented rage :eek:
you'll come to like Movieman, esp after you Run WCG and you'll see why he is a good manQuote:
Originally Posted by coffeetime
Was just some light ribbing heh :p: Have always found his posts to be well-reasoned, insightful, educational, offensive in any way. Overall seems like a cool guy, same with most of the long time members here.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
I also know anyone not autistic knows that if you go out of your way to push the wrong buttons, don't expect to get room service :D
*looks up what the heck WCG is*
I think you meant "inoffensive":rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeetime
Loved the "room service" line..VERY good!:up:
WCG= World community grid..Medical research.
We make our machines work in the hope that we can help eliminate some very nasty diseases such as aids and right now they also are doing work similar to what F@H does..Protein folding..Find out why some go wrong and screw you up..
How's that for a plain description?
Also some of the smartest, experienced people you will find and all have one thing in common..We want to help..No ego crap and we work as friends..
Dont know if this has been posted but,
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=3069
looks to be about 6% overall.
http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/Inte...form/5185.html
3GHz laptops!
And 25W 2.53GHz chips.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...815102710.html
Picks self up from the floor from laughing for hard.
Please, somebody explain to me why someone say something that Dumb and still be respected? The estimates presented as facts based on what? 3.16 compared to a 2.4GHz Barkie? What, did they take AMD's word for it?Quote:
The pricing of the upcoming Xeon E54XX processors will look as follows:
Xeon X5460 (3.16 GHz) - $1172;
Xeon E5450 (3.00 GHz) - $851;
Xeon E5440 (2.83 GHz) - $690;
Xeon E5430 (2.66 GHz) - $455;
Xeon E5420 (2.50 GHz) - $316;
Xeon E5410 (2.33 GHz) - $256;
Xeon E5405 (2.16 GHz) - $209.
If we compare these prices with the recently reported pricing of the upcoming AMD Barcelona processors, we can see that AMD estimates the IPC of their upcoming solutions much more optimistically. The direct competitor to the upcoming Opteron 2350 with 1.9GHz clock speed will be the new Xeon E5420 working at 2.5GHz, and Xeon X5460 working at 3.16GHz will compete with Opteron 2358 running at 2.4GHz speed.
So, Xeon X5460 (3.16 GHz) will cost $1172 and 2,4GHz Barkie will have similar price. Same goes for the Opteron 2350 with 1.9GHz going for a Xeon E5420 (2.50 GHz) like price $316. Sorry, I don't have that much trust in AMD.
Just compare prices today on Opterons vs Xeons. Huuuge performance delta in the same pricerange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
Yup, kind of sucks uh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Sorry AMD, but Xeon Harpertown > Opteron Barcelona at this moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
you are so much better than me...mean it...i try to be level headed but my emotions, at times, just run amock...must be the german in me...OR...was that irish...LOL:rofl: :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman