5000 vs 4900. So disappointed, if you asked me :(Quote:
Originally Posted by krjalone
5000 vs 4900. So disappointed, if you asked me :(Quote:
Originally Posted by krjalone
Don't know, I'll ask the guys if they have the time to do another re-run.Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
This is wrong I am surprised you even post this rubbish here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuen4y
I really thought you would know better at this site. :welcome:
I bench 3M06 extensively and swaps graphics card a lot.
You get the same CPU-score regardless of GPU. (Give or take a few points).
If you're talking about cards from the same manufacturer ( AMD or nVIDIA or Matrox ), then in general you are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by TL1000S
But the CPU score in 3D Mark06 differs wildly between a setup with a AMD card and a nVIDIA card.
Thanks! I hope they have the time, because I think these days nobody uses so old x264 versions ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
Quote:
Originally Posted by TL1000S
The situation also changes when you use multi GPUs.Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
Hmmm.. this contradicts my tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuen4y
Have done several benches with 3DM06 with same MB/CPU (Q6600/Q9450) swithcing from 9600GT, 8800GT, 2xHD3870 and now HD3850x2.
The CPU score stays consistent - OS=WinXP 32-bits.
If you get 300 more pts as stated above by disabling services, then I would call that a "normal" user install (lotsa crap starting up) and not a "bencher" install.
Are you sure this is with the same OS? (Preferably a tweaked "bench-OSDisk" the same for all systems).
OK. Enough off-topic from me, and I could be wrong of course. It has happened before. :)
No one postet it yet I think.
Quad Core Round Up: AMD Vs Intel Clock to Clock
Respect for the hardwork.
Few questions. Do you have a power consumption deneb vs. agena and what voltage did you need for the deneb oc.? Turbo on on i7 I assume?
This review is a little bit confused IMHO. And what's this?Quote:
Originally Posted by justapost
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4...eekgeekdj7.jpg
:eek: :ROTF: :rolleyes:
I'm still waiting for a straight review with the following CPUs:
Phenom 940 (3.0GHz)
Phenom 9950 (OCed to 3.0GHz)
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (3GHz)
Core 2 Quad Q9650 (3GHz)
Core i7 940 (OCed to 3.0GHz)
And why not one E8400 to compare the difference between quad amd and dual core intel, because they've been competing against dual core with their quads during 2008 :).Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
Charts explanation:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
Agena = Phenom I
Deneb = Phenom II
Both processors clocked at 3GHz and compared with each other to show the differences between these two.
Deneb = Phenom II
Kentsfield = Core 2 Quad ( 65nm ) [ Q6600 ]
Yorkfield = Core 2 Quad 9 ( 45nm ) [ Q9450 ]
Bloomfield = Core i7
All of them clocked at 3.7GHz for a clock per clock comparison.
I'm having trouble finding what's wrong with this comparison to you.
I think he maybe thinking that there is something wrong with the graph because the assumption is that Deneb will be faster/equal to but never slower than Agena.Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
I think the most interesting part of the clock2clock review is the power consumption.
AMD looks pretty bad there... :shrug:
Maybe bios problems? Many results look worse than the ES previes we saw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
Yepp, power consumption would look abit different here. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
Ask for details befor you complain please.Quote:
Originally Posted by loutsos
probably 1.8 vs 2.0 ghz NB clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
i'd like to see some 3 ghz NB performance. surely that's possible under cold with some volts and pineapples.
I think both processors NB clocks were equal in the tests, but I'll have to check it out again to be sure.
It's absolutely possible though.
Being a new and supposedly faster ( and truly faster in most apps ) processor doesn't make it unbeatable, and of course doesn't mean that the older "revision" can't surpass it in a few tests.
p.s. I doubt that the NB clock would make any difference in the FPU tests, can't guarantee that, but I'm pretty sure ;)
Yes it would be a little bit different and the scores as well because the i7's NB and the Core 2 processors FSB would be at stock clocks and not overclocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by justapost
If I'm not mistaken the X4 940's NB/HT stock clocks are 2GHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by biohead
Nice work! And very good conclusion.
I remember 7% advantage in wprime and ~10% in CB10, compared to Agena. It are 3% for wprime and ~1% for CB10 now. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
Odd why did they use 1,8GHz then? Too much work at once. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
Exactly.Oddly enough the Greek tests don't reflect that :shrug: .It could be a bios issue,a testing error,OS issue or who knows what :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by justapost
well only a few more days till more data should be available and then we see whats up with that.
Oh and that winrar score seems a bit low compared to what we'd expect from Phenom II.But a few more days and we'll see what's up with those numbers :).
Er, didn't your Agena beat Coolice's Deneb in Wprime?Quote:
Originally Posted by justapost
http://www.ocxtreme.org/forumenus/sh...03&postcount=8
And the Deneb score for 32-bit Cinebench 10 looks right, it's just the Agena score that seems higher than expected.
As for wprime and Agena beating Deneb,the culprit is the OS used.Justapost already spoke about this IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
Cinebech score for Agena is a bit high in hwbox review while the Deneb one is a bit low,so this could be the reason fo so close scores.I remember the 7-9% better scores per clock from the initial tests with C1 Denebs.
Exactly. Just take a look at this Shanghai review:Quote:
Originally Posted by justapost
http://images.tecchannel.de/images/t...9/original.jpg
http://images.tecchannel.de/images/t...0/original.jpg
(please note that this is dual CPU configuration - 8 cores)
source
I multiplied up the Barcelona's results.
1 CPU benchmark ~24% advantage over Barcelona
Multi CPU ~8,5% advantage over Barcelona
:rolleyes:
mod: I found this CB result here in the XS few weeks ago.
Funny, most Phenom IIs have multi speedup at 3.58x-3.6x. 3.68x is quite good.
Phen Is got 3.9x+, must be 1CPU taking advantage of more cache now. But multi-CPU should at least show a 5% increase if anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
you get the nearly the same results when you look at the techreport shanghai review.
~22% faster singel threaded
~9% multithreaded
scaling the 2.3 opteron to 2.7ghz. :yepp:
I get the nearly same speedup (~3.6x) with my 9950 since I have the ASUS board. It is beacuse the CPU tweak option in the BIOS. When you turn it off the 1 CPU result decreases but the multi is not. Strange...Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Perfect, but where is this advantage in Agena vs. Deneb relation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Look at that power consumption on the 790fx!...:shocked:
Maybe the Faster HT speed of Agena (compared to barcelona) makes more difference in cinebenche on the server platform, then compared to the desktop platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
Good or bad because they don't seem to have an agena vs deneb power consumption.
I also can't possibly believe the power consumption figures I see...because then it's pulling more juice then core2 and i7 in some and that doesn't seem right at all.
Both Barcelona and Shanghai have 1GHz HT. Only the NB clocks are different (1.8GHz vs. 2.2GHz).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caveman787
Because you do not *want* to believe it?
All "official" reviews of comparisons between K10/Yorkies/Kentsfields (quad systems) shows that Agena is a terrible powerhog (later revisions 9950 do well in idle though).
This reviews shows that Deneb has improved greatly in this respect.
But I agree it would be nice to see direct comparison of power consumption between similary clocked Agenas/Denebs.
Such test surely will appear soon. :)
?? What does this mean? You cannot believe the power consumption figures because phenomII performs dismally?Quote:
I also can't possibly believe the power consumption figures I see...because then it's pulling more juice then core2 and i7 in some and that doesn't seem right at all.
I also would like to see an agena/deneb power consumption comparison @ 3.0Ghz...it seems that deneb has 5%++ lower power consumption than agena!...
Because i7 is a fair power hog and from previews out there it showed much lower power consumption than agena and it was supposedly similar to yorkfield in consumption.
Dante this is only 1 place using full system consumption whether than just processor and most likely an es, so it may be different for retail. Hopefully we will see soon.
Well, as you can see, it certainly isn't...
someone should tabulate the numbers again, that greek site giving me headache :(. loads very slowly on my crappy net.
a long time ago amd said that clock to clock deneb should use about half the power of agena. this seems a little optimistic to me but anyway if this was true just imagine what the power of agena would be using in these tests. im not saying they aren't true but id like to see more before making a conclusion about this because it just doesn't seem right.
Great job.
According to the configurations page:
- The Phenom II @3.7GHz system power consumption is with DDR2 memory @1200 (5-5-5-15) on Asus M3A79T.
- The Q6600 and Q9Χ00 @3.7GHz system power consumption is with DDR2 memory @1374 (7-7-7-15) on Asus P5E64 WS evolution.
- The Core i7 @3.7GHz system power consumption is with DDR3 memory @1352 (7-7-7-24) on Gigabyte ex58 extreme
Is this right?
The overclocked tests are up?
All the clock for clock tests between deneb and the intels are @3.7Ghz, and for deneb 2.0Ghz nb.Quote:
The overclocked tests are up?
yea check in general hardware theres a thread in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caveman787
2250mhz on NB clock and HT link for denebQuote:
Originally Posted by Dante80
correctQuote:
Originally Posted by Marios
here you areQuote:
Originally Posted by Caveman787
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=213200
so are going to see wattage comparison between agena and deneb?Quote:
Originally Posted by OverClocker_gr
i answered you at the other thread,
Yeah it's odd, first I though he had used windows 7 but he said he used winxp 32bit. On Agena the effect of memory and nb speed where neglectable if you don't need an 1/100 sec for hwbot battle. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by accord99
windows xp are slower than vista on wprime guyz.Wake up ;)
Coolice and I compared on winxp 32bit. You used vista on agena and deneb setups?Quote:
Originally Posted by OverClocker_gr
:welcome:
yes