Clarify this for me, please

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

To be fair, I did mention expensive speaker cables first.

---

Fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

On the other hand, both rely on human perception. The typical human ear is usually not able to determine the different between pretty good hardware and highend hardware. Similar to the old adage of how a new system has to be 50% faster than the old one before a person can perceive it to be faster.

---

That's right, but my point was that this so called responsiveness, being quantitative in nature, CAN be turned into an objective benchmark, if only people had the means and the ambition to do that. Then we would be able to bench this unexplored range of performance and back up this people's statements with hard numbers, which isn't possible now because of the lack of this kind of benchmarks. I don't know if this view is a realistic one, but I do know that no benchmark is ever completely right in judging a processor's total performance.

Anyway, with only little experience on dual cores (which are in computers that are not mine) and no experience with quads whatsoever, I have little right to speak out of experience. I merely like to think about it and pose theories that at the time seem (partially) plausible to me and to the stories I read here and there on boards. In all this thinking and being pulled and drawn from one brand to the other, I will someday be finally able to make a decent conclusion as to which brand and matching platform I'd choose above all others. If only it was easier...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

No, it'll be like those people who spend thousands on expensive speaker cables and claim it enhances the audio quality even though in a double-blind test they fail to tell the difference between those cables and 12 gauge Home Depot wire.

---

on the same account, you could perform a random blind test with AMD and Intel systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

Did you even read the reviews? Anandtech review has the Q6600 winning or tying every benchmark with a 9850 except for one video encoding test, Xbitlabs has the Q6600 winning every one while Matbe has the Q6600 comparable to a overclocked 2.9GHz Phenom.

---

When I see a review that has results that are completely contrary to several other reputable sources... I have to discount those results and go with what the majority of the reviews say.

But congrats on picking two of the most biased reviews. No surprise there. You do realize that I can also quote reviews that show exactly the opposite?

This is a battle that can never be won. This is your analysis of the results against my analysis of the results. (And I'm right.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devil's Prophet

Fair enough.


That's right, but my point was that this so called responsiveness, being quantitative in nature, CAN be turned into an objective benchmark, if only people had the means and the ambition to do that. Then we would be able to bench this unexplored range of performance and back up this people's statements with hard numbers, which isn't possible now because of the lack of this kind of benchmarks. I don't know if this view is a realistic one, but I do know that no benchmark is ever completely right in judging a processor's total performance.

Anyway, with only little experience on dual cores (which are in computers that are not mine) and no experience with quads whatsoever, I have little right to speak out of experience. I merely like to think about it and pose theories that at the time seem (partially) plausible to me and to the stories I read here and there on boards. In all this thinking and being pulled and drawn from one brand to the other, I will someday be finally able to make a decent conclusion as to which brand and matching platform I'd choose above all others. If only it was easier...

---

At the end of the day, it probably won't matter much which brand you pick. People with always state AMD is #1 and people will always state Intel is # 1! at the same time. One thing we do know is technology may advance and who knows Nehalem may stink and K10.5 may rock. Unlikely, but possible. As regard to benchmark websites, I always take into question testing methods having worked in stats in the sciences I know exactly how you can "legitimately" fudge results, if that makes any sense.

My best advice to you, is take into account what's important in a computer to you as a user see examples from your friends, then do cost/benefit analysis in light of your budget, then make your best guess!:up:

It would be nice to be able to see graphs of the following two things for games:
- Latency between control manipulation and its effect on a frame
- Deviation in time between frames in a game

The first would relate to responsiveness.

The second would relate to smoothness. If on an Intel you get 40fps average with a deviation of 10ms or on the AMD you get an average of 35fps with a deviation of 5ms, I wonder what the perceived difference in smoothness would be. I imagine that people would mistake the lower framerate for a higher one just due to increased uniformity of motion. I would equate the deviation in a video's frame timing to noise in a still photograph, functionally. More noise makes people think a picture is of lower detail than a softer/less noisy version even when the reverse is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

But congrats on picking two of the most biased reviews. No surprise there. You do realize that I can also quote reviews that show exactly the opposite?

---

Please quote reviews that show exactly the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

Please quote reviews that show exactly the opposite.

---

Why should I bother? It's been done many times before in this forum and we have see that it's not going to change the mind of someone that is in the AMD forums arguing that Intel is better. You are biased and will remain so no matter what is presented to you.

As such I have no need to "convince" you of something you won't accept.

(Okay.. let me queue you up... look up fanboy response #515.... come on... don't disappoint me. Or if you don't want to look it up in the Intel Fanboy handbook... look in this forum and copy the response given the last time somebody asked for someone else to go lookup benchmark results.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

It would be nice to be able to see graphs of the following two things for games:
- Latency between control manipulation and its effect on a frame
- Deviation in time between frames in a game

The first would relate to responsiveness.

The second would relate to smoothness. If on an Intel you get 40fps average with a deviation of 10ms or on the AMD you get an average of 35fps with a deviation of 5ms, I wonder what the perceived difference in smoothness would be. I imagine that people would mistake the lower framerate for a higher one just due to increased uniformity of motion. I would equate the deviation in a video's frame timing to noise in a still photograph, functionally. More noise makes people think a picture is of lower detail than a softer/less noisy version even when the reverse is true.

---

QFT!! I agree, those graphs would help lay the argument to rest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

Why should I bother? It's been done many times before in this forum and we have see that it's not going to change the mind of someone that is in the AMD forums arguing that Intel is better. You are biased and will remain so no matter what is presented to you.

---

Or is it because you can't, since there are no reviews of the 9850 beating the heck out of the Q6600.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

Or is it because you can't, since there are no reviews of the 9850 beating the heck out of the Q6600.

---

QFT. who does this guy think he is kidding with blatant lies, come on, even the amd fanboys will admit that there are not to many reviews showing the 9850 beating the heck out of the Q6600 let alone the majority of them. I mean to have a debate about perceived responsiveness of cpus is one thing but to blatantly lie? come on guy:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by accord99

Or is it because you can't, since there are no reviews of the 9850 beating the heck out of the Q6600.

---

Laugh all you want.

You look rather silly since you're wrong.

Oh well. Continue... it's always good for a laugh. The blind Intel fanboys leading the blind Intel fanboys.

Actually it's probably more like the Pied Piper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallag

QFT. who does this guy think he is kidding with blatant lies, come on, even the amd fanboys will admit that there are not to many reviews showing the 9850 beating the heck out of the Q6600 let alone the majority of them. I mean to have a debate about perceived responsiveness of cpus is one thing but to blatantly lie? come on guy:(

---

Thank you for the personal attack.

There is nothing in my posts that is not correct.

Have fun looking silly with the other guy. You both look rather pathetic.

And guess what... I don't need to help you guys appear that way. You can do it yourselves. Please continue. It's good for many laughs.

Seriously. Neither one of you are really naive enough to believe that I can't post a review that meet those criteria are you? HINT: If either of you actually answers "yes" then I'm not sure my opinion of you can actually go down any further...

It is simple, you said that "The majority of the reviews show the 9850 beating the heck out of the Q6600"

This is a lie.Be smart all you want about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallag

It is simple, you said that "The majority of the reviews show the 9850 beating the heck out of the Q6600"

This is a lie.Be smart all you want about it.

---

What I said is a correct statement.

But apparently you haven't figured out how to find reviews on the internet. You lose. Perhaps someday when you get older you'll learn how to do your own research and not rely on an outdated printing of "Teh Intel Factbook for Good Little Girls and Boys".

Go back to the Intel forums where nobody will question your quoting of biased reviews.



EDIT: Dang... can't find the ignore list on this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallag

It is simple, you said that "The majority of the reviews show the 9850 beating the heck out of the Q6600"

This is a lie.Be smart all you want about it.

---

It's not as simple as that I am afraid.
9850 beats the q6600 in some benchmarks as well, and since this topic is about smoothness and a possible cause in the memory bandwidth systems of these cpu's, I would say that in this field, the 9850 indeed beats the q6600.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jakko

It's not as simple as that I am afraid.
9850 beats the q6600 in some benchmarks as well, and since this topic is about smoothness and a possible cause in the memory bandwidth systems of these cpu's, I would say that in this field, the 9850 indeed beats the q6600.

---

Anyone remembers what popular and reputable review site wrote a review about the 9850 where they had accidently run all of the review tests using a bios that had the TLB fix enabled by default?

(And they later did an update with the TLB fix disabled and the results were different... resulting in a very poor showing for the Q6600? Or it might have been the Q9300.) Of course by the time they did the update... the original incorrect results were being thrown all over the internet as an example of how bad the 9850 chip runs... so the "correct" results rarely got noticed.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

What I said is a correct statement.

But apparently you haven't figured out how to find reviews on the internet. You lose. Perhaps someday when you get older you'll learn how to do your own research and not rely on an outdated printing of "Teh Intel Factbook for Good Little Girls and Boys".

Go back to the Intel forums where nobody will question your quoting of biased reviews.



EDIT: Dang... can't find the ignore list on this forum.

---

Man , you are sure owning me with your smart put downs, Imagine the hurt I will feel when you put half the effort into backing up what you say with evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jakko

It's not as simple as that I am afraid.
9850 beats the q6600 in some benchmarks as well, and since this topic is about smoothness and a possible cause in the memory bandwidth systems of these cpu's, I would say that in this field, the 9850 indeed beats the q6600.

---

Jakko, Of course the 9850 bests the q6600 in some benchmarks, to suggest otherwise would be bs. I would go as far as to say the 9850 is shaping up nicley and is now worth considering. And I know this topic is about smoothness which is fair and could be a good debate because I don't think people are lying when they say this, Its just there perception but it branched of into madness when keithlm said "The majority of the reviews show the 9850 beating the heck out of the Q6600". This is not true.

At the end of the day, This is not AMD zone, this is the amd section of xtreme systems for members to discuss AMD. Every post does not have to be positive in nature, just the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

Anyone remembers what popular and reputable review site wrote a review about the 9850 where they had accidently run all of the review tests using a bios that had the TLB fix enabled by default?

(And they later did an update with the TLB fix disabled and the results were different... resulting in a very poor showing for the Q6600? Or it might have been the Q9300.) Of course by the time they did the update... the original incorrect results were being thrown all over the internet as an example of how bad the 9850 chip runs... so the "correct" results rarely got noticed.)

---

Mabey if you are having trouble remembering one review to back up your clams it might be time to stop being a smart ass and consider you were a bit hasty with your words and admit so, so we can get back to debating the hole smoothness thing which is worth doing because it might actually hold a element of truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

Anyone remembers what popular and reputable review site wrote a review about the 9850 where they had accidently run all of the review tests using a bios that had the TLB fix enabled by default?

(And they later did an update with the TLB fix disabled and the results were different... resulting in a very poor showing for the Q6600? Or it might have been the Q9300.) Of course by the time they did the update... the original incorrect results were being thrown all over the internet as an example of how bad the 9850 chip runs... so the "correct" results rarely got noticed.)

---

In all truthfullness, I can not fail to see that you aren't eager to give actual names of sites that were involved in this "fiddle". What gives? And can you give me those sitenames please, because I'd like to make my own conclusions based on numbers, not on other's conclusions.

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=259848

Plenty of reviews for you to check out and make up your own minds. But then again, isn't this thread about how benchmarks are failing to reflect real world, first hand experience in the first place?

still no reply. did I just win the argument?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by biohead

still no reply. did I just win the argument?

---

You don't win these types of arguments. No one here is going to change their mind if they're already made up. BTW where did we start debating about AMD v. Intel global perofrmance, I thought we were debating smoothness and personal experiences? Next we're gonna hear about Intel's dirty business dealings etc. Sheesh!

You are right, of course. Any AMD topic always ends up with an AMD vs. Intel comparison. I http://forums.pcper.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif at that inevitable pattern.

Im using an amd 9500 clocked to 2600 and im Always first in games in team fotress 2. These are full 24 player games. Maybe 1 in 10 loads i will be second, but mostly first. Using Samsung F1 hard disk also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=259848

Plenty of reviews for you to check out and make up your own minds. But then again, isn't this thread about how benchmarks are failing to reflect real world, first hand experience in the first place?

---

Oh lad! You know you're not supposed to give them actual benchmarks! (As if they would go and look anyway.)

Come on you know better. You know that the game is supposed to be this:

1. They ask for links.
2. You provide specific links.
3. They either belittle the site and/or choose to ignore it.
OR
3. They may tentatively accept the results and pull out their "Fine I'll just go overclock my Q6600 more and you lose" card.

Yesterday when I wouldn't play the above game they then played the "let's pretend that we really want to see a link" routine.

Anyway... regardless... the game is stupid but it goes on and nobody wins. (And Intel fans will keep coming into the AMD forums to make remarks that are not correct to incite people...)

ANYWAY BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND: "SMOOTHNESS".

When I run 2xdatabase servers, 1 web server, 2 Data Integrator servers, an FTP server, virus scanner, and other miscellaneous corporate software on a C2D machine... it becomes fairly unresponsive; if I try to run Eclipse or the Business Objects Data Integrator or a GUI database client I get long pauses and a very unresponsive system. When I do the same on an AMD machine of about the same speed it is more responsive in a very noticeable manner.

In the past whenever I've tried to mention this... the C2D fans have jumped in and told me that it's just my own perception and since it can't be benchmarked it doesn't matter. (As if to suggest that human perception is not something that can be noticed.) Luckily I'm not the only person that noticed the difference... everyone that has used both machines has wondered about the difference or asked if the C2D machine was broken.

NOTE: The above was with dual core machines... but my decision to upgrade to a Phenom at home is based on that simple fact.

The C2D fans might win a few single threaded game benchmarks... but to me that means almost nothing. Even the Phenom 9150 (?) would be a better choice than the Q6600 if the C2Q has performance on par with the C2D.

Ouch. :(

You know, I just defended these smoothness statements that were being shot at by intel believers. But to call me an Intel fanatic? Really. I just am sceptical about everything, not just benchmarks that declare Intel the winner. You are right though that I could search for my own, but I figured it could take days before I find that specific review you mentioned earlier.

Anyway, indeed back on topic.

edit: What you are telling there is indeed what I want to hear.

When I recently upgraded my dad's A64 3800+ to an X2 5600+, I noticed improvements in the stability of the responsiveness of the system. The small hickups I would encounter on the machine, when for example something would get loaded, were like totally gone. It felt like the system was idling for like all the time, but it was in fact doing things. Yay!

That was all on an Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe Wireless Edition with 2x1GB OCZ ram. I know, why does he need that kind of setup for just surfing and mailing? Even then when Windows (XP) tends to foul up, he complains about the sluggishness of his system, so I need to format an reinstall windows every now and then to keep him satisfied.

Anyway, since I had a Duron 800MHz coupled with a Via KT133A mobo, and since my brother has an nforce 4 based mobo with a venice 4000+, and both were not flawless at some things (think PCI latency patch for Via and some general weirdness for the nforce4 mobo coupled with an X1950Pro) I was determined to from then on I would couple a processor with a chipset of the same brand. That's why a year ago I was looking at the cheap but yet good 690G/V chipset based mobo's to go with a nice brisbane to upgrade my system (see sig - AXP2400+,1GB,nforce2,GF6800).

But now the 780 series of AMD chipsets have arrived, and also the B3 Phenoms. The only reason to keep me going completely for AMD is that Intel is better at power consumption per performance ratio. Since I will be paying my own eletric bills beginning at september, I thought a nice low usage but high performance AND also cheap setup is what I need. Intel fullfills the low usage and the high performance aspect of the equation, but fails to deliver lower prices. Then Tom's HW comes with the 9100 and shows that it has decent potential. I sure hope so that the potential of that chip (2,4GHz at 1,1V) is present in all Phenoms at this very moment.

Anyone who is with me for choosing an Intel chipset for an Intel CPU and an AMD chipset for an AMD CPU, or is that just a load of BS?

edit2: This urge to choose for a complete platform instead of a random combination of hardware started when I first got my Dell Latitude D610 laptop. This is a centrino platform based laptop, and frankly, I never had such a stable AND responsive system. Ever. Even my nForce2 system - of which I thought it was great compared to my KT133A - doesn't respond as smooth and fluent as my Centrino system. I have the EXT-P2P's Discard Time bug on my Abit NF7-S mobo because I use 2 s-ata discs, and I fellt a slight drawback in the potency to deal with loads. Everytime something would stress the system it would hick up. Just the inverse of the effect from a AMD multicore system.