Not alot in it between dual and quad core; would suggest that maybe the game is only taking advantage of 2 cores?
Printable View
Not alot in it between dual and quad core; would suggest that maybe the game is only taking advantage of 2 cores?
QFT. OCed X4 vs stock C2D and Yorkfield. And still pwned. Intel wins in both sides, clock per clock perfomance AND clock speeds, by a wide margin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
This sucks, who gave me my future Yorkfield at good prices then? :(
It's not the FSB. The NB controls important factors like the L3 cache speed. In this case, the L3 cache is effectively running at ~50% speed (3GHz/1.6GHz).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
1. Your assumption is based on the fact that 3GHz is the max overclocking of Phenom : we don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
2. Those numbers are based on the fact that the test is doing with final platform for all : we don't know.
So with two hypothesis you draw a conclusion, that's funny.
Under 5% difference, and that's disappointing. :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
I'd expect it to work and seems to be only 5% or less of an Intel quadcore. If there was a $100 difference between an Intel quadcore and AMD quadcore, i'd suck up the 5% and grab the AMD. 5% isn't even noticeable in 90% of the applications out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
1. Yeah, cause Phenom is gonna clock to 4GHz+ with the next miracle stepping! Anyone care for a dance in the aisles with our friend Charlie from TheINQ? :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
2. Both are pre-release chips... so either AMD is leaving performance tuning very late or you are just clutching at straws here. Do you really expect a new BIOS to give a 10% clock for clock gain for K10?! :rolleyes:
You know what else is funny? You clinging to the hope that an overclocked Phenom will have any chance against an overclocked Yorkfield. :up:
Clock for clock disadvantage / lower headroom != performance parity :shakes:
amd fanpoi: yorkfield's only 5% faster than k10 @ 3ghz
intel fanboy: yorkfield overclocks to well over 4ghz
amd fanpoi: this is madness..
intel fanboy: madness? THIS IS XS!!! *kick
Additionally pricing & power consumption are vital factors in this equation and they're virtual unknowns at this point. Price/performance is what really matters to most, not just performance. So what if AMD is a little slower than Intel in the next round? They've been behind for over a year. If AMD can somehow price phenom so that it's competitive w/ Intel relative to the performance then phenom will be at least partially successful. We ALL need AMD to get competitive again or Intel will cut their product lines substantially, jack up the prices, and stop innovating. It's silly to want AMD to fail as it would almost certainly hurt all us technofiends.
1. Cause u know someone with a Phenom rigth now who can prove that this can't happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
2. Penryn is out right now no? And u carefully read this thread some already talk about the fact that the platform is far from optimum.
U go on being funny for sure. I'm not hope because I have actually seen nothing of Phenom.
blah blah blah blah blah
man how far stuck up our own arses are some of us
:rolleyes:
The arguments in this thread are so ridiculously stupid that its hard to swallow that XS has been invaded by rabid fanbois.
amd: mines better than yours
Intel : no mines better
amd: nope mine mine mine mine
Intel: no no no its miiiiiiiiine!!!!
amd: noooooooooo
The one thing that sticks out from this benchmark is that there is a bottleneck IRRESPECTIVE of the setups used! It couldnt be plainer to see, yet, we all decide to ignore this fact and base our 'discussions' on ifs, buts and ASSUMPTIONS on things that have not been released.
How stupid is that?
Lets look at the numbers.......
If we pretend that the test was only between Intel CPU's then we would see the following
Benchmark---Intel E6850 ---------Intel QX6850--- Intel QX9650
Frequency---3Ghz (333mhz x 9)---(333mhz x 9)---(333mhz x 9)
Run0--------44.01----------------45.14----------45.46
Run1--------50.42----------------51.37----------51.24
Run2--------51.12----------------51.63----------51.55
Run3--------51.21----------------51.55----------51.56
Average-----49.19----------------49.92----------49.95
HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
How obvious is the bottleneck is NOT in the CPU.
Yet still just because the results of a K10 were added that where at best 5% slower there are people posting here as if amd had released a K10 with the performance of a K6.
:clap:
Way to go einsteins........
Hopefully some sanity will return to XS, doubtfull as there are too many tub thumpers here trying to cloud neutrals opinions on unreleased hardware. Personally its getting tiring and saddening, XS never used to be like this
:down:
Once the K10 platform has been out for 6 months will we really know what the true picture is, at the moment some people are so hell bent on muddying the waters and i cant figure out why.....
1. My assumption is based on the fact that Intel processors are at stock with a huge OC headroom (we already know this) and the AMD processor is overclocked and we know that there wont be more than 2,5Ghz Barcelonas at launch, when Intel has its 3Ghz pieces out there now.Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
2. Agree, we don´t know details, but this is the same for both sides. So no problems here.
The funny thing is that you and a bunch of people act like blind people. Phenom will fail. Not even close to a year+ old uArch, Intel Core, and far away Penryn in power consumption and dissipated heat. (and clock per clock perfomance of course)
well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoled
seems like bashing amd is kind of a temporary fashion or smth...
back then i joined xs due to it's mostly objective and informative posts and threads. i mean, there always were fanboys etc, but tbh, in the last months/year this increased exponentially and became absolutely annoying.
and no, i'm not an amd fanboy or smth, but it really hurts me if people say smth like "amd is no more due to 2012 LOLZ!... ROFL AMD, DIE!".
wtf, i'd never say something like that about neither intel nor amd. grow up.
furthermore, whoever of them, amd or intel, closes down, we, the customer, would lose. that's for sure...
Yorkfield failed its a next nextgen product at 45nm and can't deliver more worthy performance then Phenom 65nm.Quote:
Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss
STaRGaZeR, phenom will fail ?
whats tomorrows lottery numbers please ?
Pre-release CPUs and pre-release chipsets and a bunch premature adults on an internet forum.
even if it was true? Oh man are you blind or smth? Don't you see they are rapidly running out of money. If AMD doesn't start to deliver very soon, they have HUGE PROBLEMS. that I can promise you.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaZz!
Q3 was a better than average quartal for Intel&AMD. Still AMD managed a net loss of 260-299M$ (don't remember the exact number) excluding the ATI purchase.
ATI can't make any money even though Q3 should have been quite good, they had almost their full line up ready, lower production node compared to nvidia, hd 2900xt getting better and better drivers - still they didn't even manage to break even! With the 8800gt they will hardly do much better..
The same applies to AMD, they probably already included some major Barcelona sales and still made a big loss.
No argument. We know that K10 won't be faster than penryn on the desktop. However it will lack SSE4, consume more power, overclock worse, bla, bla...Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoled
Barc is strong in 2p+ and in BW intensive apps. NOT on desktop/notebook (we have enough benchmarks to prove that, spec_fp/int, anandtech's extrapolation).
AMD may break even in Q3/Q4 2008 at the earliest.. that's their main problem.
You dont know that. There is more to process design and materials than just fancy terms. AMD is supposed to soon implemen a new variant of SOI called SGOI that incorporates an eSiGe substrate and is supposed to have 40% increased electron mobility. AMD plans to use high-k and metal gates either later at 45nm or at the latest at 32nm. As for SOI runnng out of steam thats just an assumption(at best) you have made and no, AMD evaluating all of their options does not mean anything really. Any tech company will always do research before committing itself to any technology. It would have been shocking if AMD/IBM weren't evaluating all the options available to themQuote:
Originally Posted by savantu
I agree that 1.5V is huge for 65nm in fact i think its nowhere near default voltage and i doubt they tweaked their overclock at all. He is right about desktop Yorkfields though, but that is only because Intel is aggressively binning all good dies for Xeons so that they can keep the very low 80WTDP for them. So i see this TDP improving very quickly once production increases. This is a clear sign though that 45nm will not be high volume till at least Q2Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
I´m talking about final perfomance (CPC and clock speeds here), power consumption and heat disipated. No, it won´t fail in the meaning of "fail" you´re using, but they will be for mainstream. We want the best perfomance, and will never buy one of those if we want that perfomance. If you are a fanboy, well, you will buy every sh|t AMD throws at you. Every "bench" we have seen points in that direction. If you don´t thrust them, you will see it in a few months with your own eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
How dare you post the obvious! :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by mongoled
Hello Mr Shintai, who joined XS on Aug 2006 and has already racked up over 2000 posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Your persona fits perfectly in line with those who in my opinion have devalued the essense of XS. Although your knowledge evidently extends far beyond whats green and blue you also are the most frustrating type of poster.
How can someone who obviously has a respectable level of IQ be so hell bent on offering opinions that are so one sided?
What is your perogative?
In the past there was a discussion on XS regarding the alliances that certain forum members had with regards to companies that manufacture, market and sell certain products.
It seems that we have come round in a full circle and the same thing is happening again.
I cant accept the fact that someone as your self can be so biased towards a company without having a hidden agenda. I just wish there was a way that peeps posting with hidden agendas could be ousted and shamed for what they are doing to this community.
Only those responsible for XS can help put a stop to this. Otherwise more and more peeps who can discuss things on a logical level will stop posting here.......
Please note and READ that I have not directly said that YOU have a hidden agenda, I am sure though that there are peeps here who will know if this is the case or not.
Huh ?Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
The 1600MHz HT links offers 6.4GBs of BW and low latency.That's more than enough since the memory traffic isn't there.
This is simply grasping for straws...
Another nice one : RAM running at 800 CL5.
Hello world : 99% of DDR2 800 in this world runs at CL5.
Hello world take 2 : using better RAM improves the scores.But this is also true for the Intel platform.
This is funny ( or pretty sad depending on how you see it ).Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
AMD plans to ramp 45nm in H1 2008 and is building CPUs as we speak on 45nm ( if we were to believe Ruiz ) , yet , 3 months ago they didn't know which way to go on 45nm.
As for the 40% claim , nothing is free my dear Watson.The ceteris paribus condition isn't fulfilled.They might get 40% , but the trade offs aren't shown.
As for High-K and metal gates , that's the most significant change in silicon technology in 40 years ; it's a turning point in addressing future scaling.
Claiming that it doesn't matter and will somehow be mitigated by herculean efforts with SGOI and low-k is just a refusal to accept the reality : IBM/AMD did not have the R&D , money and brainpower to implement this features in a timely manner.
Actually Xeons are binned conservatively , closet to their worst case scenario.Intel also uses slower , less leakier transistors because their offer better reliability.Quote:
I agree that 1.5V is huge for 65nm in fact i think its nowhere near default voltage and i doubt they tweaked their overclock at all. He is right about desktop Yorkfields though, but that is only because Intel is aggressively binning all good dies for Xeons so that they can keep the very low 80WTDP for them. So i see this TDP improving very quickly once production increases. This is a clear sign though that 45nm will not be high volume till at least Q2
As for the "clear sign" this might be obvious only to you since Intel plans to crossover to 45nm in Q3 2008.
Compared to AMD's volume , Intel's 45nm process will be high volume starting with this Q.
But it's also true that timings almost do nothing on an intel plattform but can do miracles for the AMD platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu