AMD Shanghai/Deneb Review Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iocedmyself

snip~well of course they aren't day to day clocks which is kind of my point, the glass cieling for i7 is 800mhz below phenom II (thus far anyway) I7 has trouble hitting anything past 3.6 on air as has been shown by several reviews, at least one posted in this thread. While Deneb routinely seems to hit 3.9-4.1 on air, someone here had hit 5.6 or 5.7 with cold which isn't far off from record.snip~

---

I beg to differ..My i7-965 runs at 3733mhz at 100% load 24/7 at 61C on air,TRUE and 87CFM 120x38mm fan since November solid with out a hiccup.
Runs SP1M at 4226 and Cinebench10 at 4005.
Not trying to derail the thread but wanted that comment set straight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

I beg to differ..My i7-965 runs at 3733mhz at 100% load 24/7 at 61C on air,TRUE and 87CFM 120x38mm fan since November solid with out a hiccup.
Runs SP1M at 4226 and Cinebench10 at 4005.
Not trying to derail the thread but wanted that comment set straight.

---

Isnt the I7-965 already at 3.2ghz?
Maybe he was reffering to the i7-920.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raiderman

Isnt the I7-965 already at 3.2ghz?
Maybe he was reffering to the i7-920.

---

Plus Movieman seems to forget the price premium for the unlocked 965EE system ;).

PS I'm aware *some* i7 920s can hit north of 4Ghz but with a price of turning off SMT and dealing with huge load temps that make your case a mini nuclear plant ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

I beg to differ..My i7-965 runs at 3733mhz at 100% load 24/7 at 61C on air,TRUE and 87CFM 120x38mm fan since November solid with out a hiccup.
Runs SP1M at 4226 and Cinebench10 at 4005.
Not trying to derail the thread but wanted that comment set straight.

---

Dave, be careful, stuff like this is bound to get you labeled real quick around here. Then again you're a mod so you may be spared. At least I know everytime I correct an impression or assumption, I've been quickly labeled. Just a warning. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

The only wall I see is you; at least that's how dumb you sound with your entrenched position. You can add your buddy, roofsniper to that list. I know it hurts, but this is hardware so get over it.

---

Dude, relax. It's not that serious. I honestly don't understand why you aren't banned yet. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Dave, be careful, stuff like this is bound to get you labeled real quick around here. Then again you're a mod so you may be spared. At least I know everytime I correct an impression or assumption, I've been quickly labeled. Just a warning. :up:

---

what did he say that was wrong? i believe he said factual information that makes sense without flaming anyone for no reason at all. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

what did he say that was wrong? i believe he said factual information that makes sense without flaming anyone for no reason at all. :shrug:

---

Is this factual enough for you?

Quote:

---

That's a wrong summation; Ci7 can take heat more than Deneb, it's by design. Your Deneb won't overclock a damn if your core voltages reach anywhere near Ci7. As you guys would find out soon enough: Deneb needs to be kept cold in order to reach the 3.6, 3.8 Ghz range. A 60C t5emp may be the limit for Deneb, but it's certainly not the case for Ci7.

---

Now go to the page and see the response. Hilarious; you'll see some familiar people and their responses.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...209491&page=40

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

what did he say that was wrong? i believe he said factual information that makes sense without flaming anyone for no reason at all. :shrug:

---

Did he post again?

I can't see them anymore - got tired of looking at the jackass ... :p:
(or whatever is pulling that third world transportation device)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Is this factual enough for you?



Now go to the page and see the response. Hilarious; you'll see some familiar people and their responses.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...209491&page=40

---

thats not factual at all quoting your responses that i have already read. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuietIce

Did he post again?

I can't see them anymore - got tired of looking at the jackass ... :p
(or whatever is pulling that third world transportation device)

---

Hehe ,i see you have discovered the magical button :D. I like the picture of third world transportation device,makes the posts in context :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

...

---

You sigged me for what reason?
Prove me i wrong!
Based on Hwbox.gr numbers stock PII 920 is in average 11.7% faster than stock Q6600 and stock PII 920 is in average 3.3% slower than stock Q9450.
That's obvious it will bet faster than Q9300 (cache performance hit + frequency hit/Q9450) and may be equal to Q9400 (cache performance/Q9450)

Q9450 versus Q9400 :
http://www.matbe.com/comparatifs/?id...2&prod2=160961
156 for Q9450 and 148 for Q9400 difference = 5.4%

Q9450 versus Q9300 :
http://www.matbe.com/comparatifs/?id...2&prod2=160951
156 for Q9450 and 139 for Q9300 difference = 12.2%
And you called people here ignorant... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

You sigged me for what reason?
Prove me i wrong!
Based on Hwbox.gr numbers stock PII 920 is in average 11.7% faster than stock Q6600 and stock PII 920 is in average 3.3% slower than stock Q9450.
That's obvious it will bet faster than Q9300 (cache performance hit + frequency hit/Q9450) and may be equal to Q9400 (cache performance/Q9450)

Q9450 versus Q9400 :
http://www.matbe.com/comparatifs/?id...2&prod2=160961
156 for Q9450 and 148 for Q9400 difference = 5.4%

Q9450 versus Q9300 :
http://www.matbe.com/comparatifs/?id...2&prod2=160951
156 for Q9450 and 139 for Q9300 difference = 12.2%
And you called people here ignorant... :rolleyes:

---

yea dude don't worry about it. he has sigged many people he just feels good about himself for doing it or something. just block him like most of us already have. chad sigged me awhile back for saying that i am not biased even tho i run amd. thats just how they are. :shrug:

anyone got a clue about deneb/shanghia's cache cycle
Barcelona's was in the 40's 44or 49 cycle I don't remember but is it improved ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roofsniper

thats not factual at all quoting your responses that i have already read. :shrug:

---

Tell me what is not factual about what I just said. Do that and you'll be on your way to having a fair debate. I'm not into arguing simpletons, if you can show me that you're capable of thinking logically and able to at least deduce the strengths and weaknesses of both platforms I'm more than willing to debate you. I tell it like it is and you sig this because there are many technically sound people in this thread who are intentionally twisting the facts.

Chad Boga was right; AMDs new revision is nothing more than that, a revision.

Here are the pros: marginal performance improvement, and more impressive elimination of coldbug.

Cons: power draw is still higher compared to Intel competitors aka. 45nm C2Q, still behind in ipc compared to the same group; has a low temp thresold when overclocking. You can sig it, it is the truth, even though you won't admit it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

You sigged me for what reason?
Prove me i wrong!
Based on Hwbox.gr numbers stock PII 920 is in average 11.7% faster than stock Q6600 and stock PII 920 is in average 3.3% slower than stock Q9450.
That's obvious it will bet faster than Q9300 (cache performance hit + frequency hit/Q9450) and may be equal to Q9400 (cache performance/Q9450)

Q9450 versus Q9400 :
http://www.matbe.com/comparatifs/?id...2&prod2=160961
156 for Q9450 and 148 for Q9400 difference = 5.4%

Q9450 versus Q9300 :
http://www.matbe.com/comparatifs/?id...2&prod2=160951
156 for Q9450 and 139 for Q9300 difference = 12.2%
And you called people here ignorant... :rolleyes:

---

I sigged you because you're beginning to see the light. :up:

huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Tell me what is not factual about what I just said. Do that and you'll be on your way to having a fair debate. I'm not into arguing simpletons, if you can show me that you're capable of thinking logically and able to at least deduce the strengths and weaknesses of both platforms I'm more than willing to debate you. I tell it like it is and you sig this because there are many technically sound people in this thread who are intentionally twisting the facts.

Chad Boga was right; AMDs new revision is nothing more than that, a revision.

Here are the pros: marginal performance improvement, and more impressive elimination of coldbug.

Cons: power draw is still higher compared to Intel competitors aka. 45nm C2Q, still behind in ipc compared to the same group; has a low temp thresold when overclocking. You can sig it, it is the truth, even though you won't admit it.

---

You're right you can go now:wiggle:
Only a moron can get a conclusion with one imcomplete review...

I guess Im not understanding why someone would post intel stuff in a thread entitled "shanghai/deneb review thread" :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbelJemka

You're right you can go now:wiggle:
Only a moron can get a conclusion with one imcomplete review...

---

Sorry my conclusions are drawn from more than one review; fortunately, I'm not as blind as you as I've followed all the reviews you choose to ignore. Only an imbecile would assume what another person is basing his arguments on. Here's a piece of advice; when in doubt, ask. Tu comprende?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Sorry my conclusions are drawn from more than one review; fortunately, I'm not as blind as you as I've followed all the reviews you choose to ignore. Only an imbecile would assume what another person is basing his arguments on. Here's a piece of advice; when in doubt, ask. Tu comprende?

---

Enlight me Zucker2K show me your links :eek:

Abel don't quote him,that way we that used the magical ignore button on him can see how his *magnificent deduction skills* work (or fail to do so) :p: . But he is persistant,you gotta give him credit for that(apart from being able to insult almost every one who disagrees with him :p: )

Cool the ignore button doesnt slow down the load time for pages like it does at some other forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Abel don't quote him,that way we that used the magical ignore button on him can see how his *magnificent deduction skills* work (or fail to do so) :p: . But he is persistant,you gotta give him credit for that(apart from being able to insult almost every one who disagrees with him :p: )

---

lol i was just about to say the same. theres no point in talking to someone who ignores every word you say anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sundancerx

how many times its been pointed out power=!voltage.
P (watts) = E(voltage) x I(current)
even if you have more voltage but significantly lesser current, power still lower.

---

My answer was about "temps" (numbers) many tend to think is acutal temperatures within a core, from a point on the PCB..etc.

But if you feel like giving answers to something else, that is OK. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TL1000S

My answer was about "temps" (numbers) many tend to think is acutal temperatures within a core, from a point on the PCB..etc.

But if you feel like giving answers to something else, that is OK. :)

---

idk if he was talking to you because it doesn't have to do with what you said. he might of been responding to people in this thread that have said because of voltage is higher it should consume more power which isn't true.