Crysis bench stable was at 5.3 or so, not over 6G.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Crysis bench stable was at 5.3 or so, not over 6G.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
what cooling for 5.3GHzQuote:
Originally Posted by massman
LN2 most obviously.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampsa
I LOL'd real hard here :ROTF:
Dry iceQuote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
wow
probably a 5.8GHz LN2 chip
I reckon it was the same chip that hit 6.3G with 1.9v and temps of -180°C :D
How did they deal with board component temps? Id want heaters on the caps etc for temps like that
I want to know how far Phenom II can go on a Cryo-Z or similar cooling, 5GHz would be a blast if possible.
On NVIDIA SLI boards it's the drivers and BOIS that prohibit CFX to work on them, the CFX drivers only check if the cards are CFX compatible (no 3850 with a 4870 for example) and that there are enough PCIe lanes available. The SLI drivers also check if the motherboard is supported, but this 'support' is not some kind of hardware capability and any board with enough PCIe slots with the necessary lanes could support SLI if NVIDIA allowed it. SLI and CFX both use the standard PCIe protocol, so any chip with the needed amount of PCIe lanes should be able to support them. Any limitations to this compatibility come from restrictions put up by either ATI or NVIDIA, although I'm not aware of any restrictions that are made by ATI and so far only NVIDIA has put some limitations on their SLI support.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Very off topic in an AMD thread, but I will keep this short.Quote:
Originally Posted by largon
Easy to get several ram speeds.... You don't have a FSB anymore, just multipliers of the BClock.
Play with the Calculator and you can see the possibilities: http://icrontic.com/downloads/nehale...ing-calculator
Wasn't sure if I wanted to quote at all! The first one is a multi Quote LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Thanks!:up: Even if Phenom II has moderate sales, AMD will still sale their video cards to folks seeing nVidia's a Tax:rolleyes: Phenom II doesn't need nVidia at all IMHO! Our small market (though growing revenue wise) are the only ones who really give a flip anyway! How quickly do we forget nVidia had almost NO affect on the non-supporting SLI on Intel chipsets?Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
Wait, I think one of us doesnt get the point:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by GAR
You asked whether AMD has a non-nVidia chipset both supporting CFX and SLI, which was in my eyes some rethorical question since we know AMD doesnt have it.
I answered that if you're pointing out that Intel does have, namely the X58, it ain't really true.
Intel still needs to include, well the motherboard manufacturer, a little chip from nVidia to enable SLI.
So basicly I was wondering if there's another chipset having both CFX and SLI from Intel without the nVidia chip or either of us missed the context of each others post;)
Not a big deal in anyway, but I guess it got a lot more complex than it could have been though:p:
Buth with SLI availability you'll still have more sales.
No matter nVidia was quite arrogant at the launch of GT200 and in the end they had to lower the prices to still be competitive, there are always nVidia fanboys/pro-nVidia people around. All the 'TWIMTBP' advertizing catches a lot of people even if they dont even know that this seriously doesnt do anything in performance. Some people just want compatability, also again this doesnt have a lot to do with said logo.
And non-nVidia users, be it permanent or whether they've the best card or not, really wont, or at least shouldnt, care whether they can use it or not. Also if nVidia gets a better card out again you wont have to get another motherboard if you want to have SLI.
Correction: nowadays manufacturers can send their mobos for "sli ratification" and pay a small amount of money (about 5$, if I'm correct) for each SLI certified X58-board on sale. They are still used in ûberclass motherboars though (marketing).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
I imagine its $5 a board sold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junos
I think you should probably read it like : "Just got it!" :rofl: :ROTF: :ROTF: :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampsa
Hopefully if AMD matching/exceeding Intel, we will see intel in attack mode soon. They have been snoozing since the 45nm rollout. Nehalem release rollout is awful. But this time they will not want to cede crown to AMD so I am hoping they will aggressively boost clockspeed or release westmere on time.
Snoozing implies Intel has been doing nothing at all. I'd say it's more like Intel is taking their sweet time on releasing chips. There is no rush to release chips that'll phase out other chips still on sale, might as well take your time and clear out your old stock while you safely hold onto the performance lead. Intel has atleast another 3 months before they have to be even concerned. If Deneb is as powerful as we are being lead to believe then perhaps Intel will worry a little for it's Q9400/Q9550 lines but otherwise they'll still have everything locked down.Quote:
Originally Posted by shawmanus
Hope its true....if performance and value is similar to intel i kinda prefer giving money to the small company :)
But in the current situation I always (barring ultra cheapo machines) recommend intel.
Thanks to tbone8ty in AMD section who posted the link,we have a couple of new bench and OC results for ES 940 from here:
http://markbench.blogspot.com/2008/1...ith-deneb.html
Seems pretty impressive!
I have to classify the 3dmark results there as "too good to be true." Something is messed up there.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
The CPU Queen result looks very good but more in line with reality; if these results are accurate, Deneb will be slightly faster/clk than Yorkfield in that bench.
is that one card ??Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
That page lists "Graphics: Gigabyte 4870X2 2048Mb @ stock"Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
They listed the Gigabyte 4870X2 2048Mb in their test setup.So it's basically CF of two 4870s.Still the results ,like Extelleron said,are quite high.Let's hope this is not another fake ,as we approach the launch day.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
actually it would be faster, a lot faster. 3ghz Yorkfield with stock X2 scores ~18k in 3dm6.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extelleron
those scores are massive even with one card.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
I posted this in amd section,but might as well here since more people reads news.
They did update the blog with Crysis Warhead numbers(4870X2 used and only Deneb @ stock 3Ghz for now):
http://markbench.blogspot.com/2008/1...ead-deneb.html
Anyone knows what numbers C2Q@3Ghz or Core i7 @3-3.2Ghz show in this game and resolution settings with 4870X2?
Quote:
Crysis Warhead @ Deneb
Only with factory default freqs.
Cpu name: Phenom II 940 (core Deneb, AM2+) @ 3GHz
Motherboard: M3A79-T Deluxe (AMD 790FX+SB750 )
Memory: 4096 Mb CSX 1066MHz (DDR2)
Graphics: Gigabyte 4870X2 2048Mb
Os: Win Vista 64 Service Pack 1
Drivers: Motherboard bios: 0602, Catalyst 8.10, MB chipset 3.0.642.0
Crysis Warhead: DX10 high, shaders very high, 1920x1200x32, AA off
Results:
Average:47fps
Max: 84fps
Min: 36fps
bye: Dred
Its time to sleep fellaz! 4pm! :Dlol
Sleep at 4 PM.... ok.. :(
here's what i found, with warhead, not X2 but 2x4870..it shows around 33fps 1900x1200x32 no AAQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
don't know what is "enthusiast quality" settings though...
cpu doesn't seem to be the bottleneck though as fps is still increasing with 3xGTX280
that would be around 50% more fps with a similar settup
i'm really confused by those numbers, i'd like to see same numbers with same settings on i940
could it be the ram on this X2 vs the ram on regular 4870? the perf gap between GTX ans 4870 could point it
http://www.presence-pc.com/tests/core-i7-jeux-22829/9/
From the same blog.. hereQuote:
This is Phenom (940).
@1,92V=5210MHz!
@1,78V=4530MHz!
These numbers seem more inline with what we were expecting to see.
Alu pot and DICE? Thats like -40 compared to -180 with Cu DD. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
What is that pot? I swear I've seen it here in XSF.
what a retarded blogQuote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
no useful information there
we want details not some crap like that
if he is really not under NDA and doesnt give a :banana::banana::banana::banana: about it why :banana::banana::banana::banana: around like that....show proper figures man
I'd still like to think that based on these preliminary results that 4ghz+ should be easily obtainable for anyone with a good mobo and decent cooling... Looking forward to January!
if you read the posts on many threads here you will find that most CPUs will do 3.6GHz rather than 4GHzQuote:
Originally Posted by LexDiamonds
Now if you read this thread closely enough, that was supposed to be the sweet spot possibly with stock cooling. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
I assumed ln2 because they make no mention of dice on the blog, and have this under thier first post *above quote*Quote:
Overclocked (LN2) benchmarks comin' next week!
18 pages and not one picture of that 6.3GHz... why? don't understand, why there is no pictures of this outstanding result.
Of these two phenom II chips, which will overclock better?
1. phenom 2 940 AM2+ 125 watt (unlocked)
2. phenom 2 945 AM3 95 watt (unlocked)
saaya says 3.6GHz is averageQuote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
he works for foxconn and can mess around in labs all he wants
linus is testing a chip atm >> 3.6GHz too
i doubt very much that they will run 4GHz THAT easy or if they do it will be cream i'm sure
Because AMD forbade anyone to do so. NDA in other words. Every journalist had to tone down their articles as AMD did not really want to reveal what these could do under LN2. Maybe to try and contain the hype somewhat. Some people are already yelling things like "Nehalem killer!", which is a bit of an exaggeration at this point in time as there are no reliable performance reviews out yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by illidan
Saaya most probably has a C1.Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
C1s overclock exactly close to what's said. ;)
You should reread Linus' last post:Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
" It took me about 1/2 an hour to find a quad prime stable (8 hrs) setting of over 3.6GHz on air." is self-explanatory !Quote:
Originally Posted by Linus@ncix
3.6ghz, maybe it will match kentsfield clock for clock???Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
3610Mhz is also over 3,6ghz. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
as long as he dont specifies what "over 3,6Ghz" means, it could be just a few or serveral hundred Mhz more .
Or maybe it will match Agena clock for clock?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Hornet,the dude clearly can't say exact figures as he is limited obviously by NDA.
Just FYI,3.6Ghz is 11%(eleven percent) lower than 4Ghz.Eleven percent is nothing,especially as we know by now how well Deneb reacts to additional VCore,provided you have good air cooling.The chip has very low power draw even though default Vcore is 1.35V.So 1.6V is not that high for this gen. of AMD chips.
edit: don't forget the posted benchmark results from that blog could be fake,so we need to keep that possibility in mind.
what dont you quote saaya's post saying more vcore doesnt help while you're at it :)
Why don't you ask saaya what stepping did he test while you're at it?C1 or C2?ES or retail?
It'd hurt AMD :DQuote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
When is the NDA lifted so we can see the real thing and not this damn speculation and useless blabla? Hey I SWEAR I have a 10GHz i7! ON AIR! 1,6v is NOTHING. But I won't let you see it beause I'm under my own NDA, instead I'll tease you a bit. Are you jealous? :hrhr:
They better release some real evidences of this soon.
I would belive that. It's typical of 65nm chips especially, that they respond to cooling much more than Vcore. 1.45v was the sweetspot on them if you couldn't get temps way down. Pumping more volts on air, even very good air results in bugger all more headroom.
notably different to the intel's
but anyway, as mentioned, what is the stepping, and how old are saaya's chips?
Why don't you let our guys speculate? If you're not interested about those speculations leave this thread and wait January 8th ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Speculation is all fine and dandy, but a lot of things here are said as being fact while there is absolutely nothing written in stone at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
Have you ever think that maybe we are more interested than you in P2, but we just don't swallow the FUD? Do you remember Phenom launch? Let's not repeat the same failures over and over again ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
"FUD and speculation are the path to the dark side. FUD leads to false illusion. False illusion leads to desesperation. Desesperation leads to suffering". Oh wait, where have I heard that? The master speaks truth.
In two words: get real.
Well there was a sickening amount of speculation about nehalem, and IMO it was a bit of a fizzle.
I'm siked for AMD if it pans out, i need more stuff to play with.
What's 'siked'? :p: I think you mean psyched, if so the me too. I can't wait to build my new rig next year, all I have to do now is get a job and earn some money....Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcape
You feel the need, you and others to come and save us from "swallowing the FUD"?Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
It seems you really underestimate XS members's capacity to separate facts and speculations.
Can you run these in the current dual socket boards?
LOL, QFT! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
Most of the people "getting real" swallowed the i7 hype so easily. Hypocrites anonymous unitus!
Nope. I hope they'll make the FX run on a new 4x4 board or something like that, as I'm rather attracted to building a Gainestown system for rendering.Quote:
Originally Posted by SocketMan
Yeah I know how to spell it, but I prefer the phonetic spelling because the correct spelling looks gross. It's silly, but it's the only case I do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
You are on the same page as me, the more good options the better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Indeed. Some rumors and speculation are A-OK, as long as it's pro Intel...
How about everyone stop complaining about every single rumor and just accept that some of them WILL be accurate. If you yourself are incapable of figuring out what's accurate and what's not, that's fine. But don't drag the rest of us down with you.
Some people here are capable of thinking for themselves... Keep the whining to yourselves IMO, or post something moderately constructive that attacks the actual rumor. Crying isn't going to make i7 more attractive, sorry guys.
If 3.6GHz is average on air that's better than my Q6600, 3.2GHz @ 1.45v under water :p:
Trust me, nobody's "crying" over i7. No need to be sorry, i7 is already quite attractive as it is. Let's see what has it been now a week and half since reelase? We've already seen 5.3Ghz OC's, 4.3GHz OC's on air? Yep, and it will only get better as people tweak and learn more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
The same thing will go for AMD's offering when they release it. It will get better as time goes on, but as far as numbers...
I'm just tired of the Intel-fan damage control. And you must talk to different people than I, because it seems a fair bit of people are upset that i7 isn't what they expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
Now i7 IS exactly what I expected, an improvement upon Yorkfield. My point is, that it's not anything revolutionary, just evolutionary. Yet people want to make out as if AMD has no chance at competing.
If people are truly confident in their chosen company this round, I guess they shouldn't need the damage control at all... Odd that it's around.
The fact remains ,that Phenom II isn't out yet, so all we're going to have is rumors, speculation, and the occasional solid fact. So as a forum, we can either just not talk about PhII at all until it comes out... Or talk about it and debate.
I like the debate idea myself, and I'm sure you do as well sir.
Very good points there :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
I think it odder that you believe reasonable comments about Phenom II are coming from people who have "chosen company's" and that their comments are "damage control".Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
So on the one hand you like debate but then attempt to stifle it?Quote:
The fact remains ,that Phenom II isn't out yet, so all we're going to have is rumors, speculation, and the occasional solid fact. So as a forum, we can either just not talk about PhII at all until it comes out... Or talk about it and debate.
I like the debate idea myself, and I'm sure you do as well sir.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
I think it yet odder that you believe you know which specific posters/posts I refer to.
I don't think ANYONE should be stifled. But I think asking for others to be stifled... Should be stifled. If that paradoxically makes any sense at all. :ROTF:
Phenom II might come out and be utter garbage for all I know, I wasn't at the AMD event. But so far the rumors seem pretty solid and look VERY promising.
I think select people may be a bit blinded by their like for Intel/dislike for AMD is all. All I want, my "mission" posting right now if you will, is for this discussion
to continue along.
Hope to not peeve anyone off, that's why I leave out names. I don't want to be "that guy" who has to pick on everyone and be a jerk. I'm merely rather strong
headed if you will, so please, try not to read TOO far into my comments.
Oh wow, he can do that folks. Me want one too. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
I would think your quoting and responding to T_Flight, might be a pointer here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
I think at this point its clear that Deneb is going to be far more than any of us believed it would be. Thats what all the exitement is over so there is just no need for anyone to try and convince us otherwise.
Looking back on this thread I dont recal anyone stating that Deneb will be better than i7, there have been some if its better statement but on the other hand there have been plenty of posts saying i7 is better. Realy most of this has been one sided as far as forcing opinions on to others goes.
It realy dont matter to me personaly if i7 is a far better than Deneb because I can upgrade to Deneb with only a CPU purchase therefore it will be quite some time before I will be buying i7...........just dont have the money for it these days.
Oh, well that's because my post was directed at him, but not necessarily in reference to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
I don't mean to imply that HE HIMSELF is a fanboy or doing any of the things I've talked about. I apologize for the confusion and I see where you're coming from better now.
Same to you T_Flight, please don't take my post that way. It was not written nor intended that way. Believe me, if I had something to say, I'd say it. But I think you're a fine poster.
The Hype has been built up pretty BIG, lets hope AMD can deliver like they did on the 4800's, even if they dont come out on top, this is a good sign that they are headed in the right direction, but why it took so long no one knows.
I think something that has been forgotten in the various discussions about Deneb is that it will be the Penryn Quads that it will be competing against first and foremost, rather than i7.Quote:
Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck
Not only that, but for many people looking to get a new computer from scratch, the E8400 and E8500 will also be a direct rival.
For those who already have an AM2 motherboard, then Deneb will be particularly tempting.
is there any comparison phenom2 vs. core i7 ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Well I think yorkfield may be a little ahead, at least based on my quick runs....Quote:
Originally Posted by Extelleron
Q9550 @ 4Ghz
http://hostthenpost.org/uploads/2721...a725cfd9ad.jpg
Q9550 @ 4.25Ghz
http://hostthenpost.org/uploads/2f23...3a0f38524e.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
No problems here. Everything is cool with me. I hope everybody gets along here, and has a good time with this stuff. Yeah, I got a big huge Intel Core i7 avatar and I'm proud of it, but I am looking at the AMD stuff stuff to becasue it's interesting.
What got me mad the other day was when another individual (who will remain nameless) started stuff up like "the Intel boys are coming into the AMD section to check out IMC's". Now that is a bunch of horse****. That is fanboism at it's very worst. That's the one time over the last couple of days I have gotten really mad, but there was alot more to it than that.
I'm pretty low key most of the time. That's why I like discussions like this. This is constructive. We will see these. I expect by January or February. It just seems like stuff is "ramping up" now, so it's got to be close. Motherboards are showing up so this is no paper tiger anymore. It is coming. I'm just kinda hanging around these threads becasue it's interesting, and hope to see some numbers soon. :)
I have the HW and the game, I could run it for you... are you still interested in seeing it ... both 3.0 GHz C2Q and Core i7 3.2 GHz... on 4870 X2.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Jack
anyone seen these before? http://markbench.blogspot.com/2008/1...ith-deneb.html and http://markbench.blogspot.com/2008/1...ead-deneb.html. looks salty
Wow :eek: I hope those are real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeywoman
But now dont focus on the 'over 3.6Ghz' part, but more like on the 'in 30 minutes' part? I mean, no one has a fully tweaked and OC'd system in 30 minutes, even my parents know that while they know nothing about it in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
So if you got in 30 minutes, over or not, 3.6Ghz OC Prime95 stable, you dont think there's a huge possibility, depending on current temps and Vcore, that he might as well get another 200Mhz? Or even another 400Mhz in that matter?
I dont know what kind of super skills you've, but I never OC'd a system to the max, or 24/7 durable, in 30 minutes.
Im sorry for you you got to make a post like that. How exactly was Nehalem not overhyped? There were many people claiming 4Ghz was easy on Bloomfield as well, it wouldnt be expensive etc. Well, 4Ghz ain't an average obviously and it is expensive, considering you get some real parts though.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
I mean, NDA is there for a reason, grow up. They can either break the NDA and become in trouble right away or never get a preview like this again. At some point I'd rather stick to such rules tbh.
Read the above. Just like a single 6.3Ghz LN2 Phenom II run ain't saying everything about Phenom II in general, so is a 4.3Ghz OC on air also no average.Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
Besides that, Intel managed to get the CPU's on time in shops, now the motherboard manufacturers have not. Thus far I didnt see anything for my self:p:
Yups its truly salty... Did you see their "latest" post from "September" (the blog was just created this month November!)? This one http://markbench.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html Does those pictures look familiar? It should.. The picture processor was clearly taken from OCP, they just crop it to hide the watermark.. The CPUZ came from that single and only post at http://www.overclock.net/4285114-post9.html (which later turned up at AcesHardware) :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeywoman
Original picture
http://img.inpai.com.cn/2008/7/11/f9...231a53906d.jpg
^^ Yup
Your nick should be dreambuster :p:
In the harsh times of the credit crunch the bulk of end users will go for performance/cost over ultimate performance. I see this happening more and more....this is where AMD are aiming this new CPU.They did the same with the 4XXX GPU cards and its working just fine for them as we all know.
I have i7 965XE, i will hopefully soon have Phenem2 940, going on forecast/present pricing would i be able to afford the i7 965?...sorry lads no I would not, but I can afford the 940 and if it clocks like the reports are saying then i would probably have a lot of fun playing with it.
Just to remind you guys the Extreme performance market is tiny, some of the top end boards have total sales less than 200 pieces world wide... If you keep this in mind and look at the price of i7 boards you are going to see in the bigger picture... i7 is to expensive for the average end user to buy. Even those looking to get the lower end models and clock them up still have to pay out $$$ on the boards and probably upgrade to DDR3.
I have a feeling Intel's pricing will change massively over the next few weeks now, i can't see $1500 processors staying at that price and boards will come down massively also.
Competition is good don't you think ;) ?
BTW no insider info here, just my personal opinion
^^and your nickname sjould be AMD HATER, now was my post neededQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
** OF COURSE NOT **
so why did u have to post such a snide comment in an AMD thread??
Just as the thread is coming back on track, why are u trying to derail it.
cant u just let things be?
If peoples hopes are smashed, does this make you feel good? Give u a *ardon? Or just inflate your ego??
Your post has been reported, quit trolling
:rolleyes:
I guess you prefer the fake info in the blog. And sofar you are the only one derailing and trolling with personal issues.
Also look at the CPU Queens results, its way off.. Compare to..
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z5/rv/2008/...ghai_queen.jpg
from http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/...57885-4,00.htm
Single core = 4977
Lets's assume perfect clock scaling.. from 2.7GHz to 3Ghz...
Hypothethically at 3GHz single core = (4977 x 3) / 2.7 = 5530
Let's assume perfect 100% performance scaling from 1 core to 4 cores (no performance penalty)...
Hypothethically at 3GHz 4 cores = 5530 x 4 = 22120
Still falls short of that score... 23466
Furthermore, there is no such thing as perfect performance scaling... If you noticed from the ZDNet's score, going from 1 core to 8 core performance didn't scale 100% per core.. more like 64.6%.
^^ The X7460 would be 24 cores and not 12. Else yes :)
Also fits quite ok with the 2/3 scaling.
A 9950BE should get round 18700 pts at 3GHz. That would mean ~25% IPC increasement, sounds abit unrealistic. I got 16180 pts at 2.6GHz and 19900 at 3.2GHz that's an 23% performance increase with an 30% frequency increase.
Hell Yeah!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
I'm looking at the Shanghai scores.. :rolleyes:
CPU Queens is very small, about 1MB and should fit in the cache easily. Thus, I think NUMA should not affect it much. ;)
Nobody is trying to save you, I'm trying to save myself from clicking a thread and find just :banana: :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
So far nobody has talked about perfomance. Who cares if it can clock to 4GHz if perfomance is equivalent to a 400MHz less C2Q. I guess we won't have any proven info about that until we reach the launch day (that doesn't include Mark's blog and similar, just in case).
Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
...Somehow I remember that from the ones who claimed that RV770 has 480 SP. AMD wants to do the same again. "OMG 5 GHz on AMD!" two months later "OMG +6,5 GHz ON AMD!! :up:". They quite failed. 6 GHz is a very nice result anyway.
No, it's 12 (twelve) cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
So what's with the crazy performance delta?Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDNet
So if u wanna save yourself just don't click and don't post :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
If u just post to say "wait launch day, X or Y spreadind FUD", that is surely increase your post count and...that'all :shrug:
Their 45nm process is so much better than their 65nm process, and the huge core was a tad too big slice of the pizza for the 65nm, even Intel said that they wouldn't have done it on 65nm. Now the 45 nm seems to work fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by GAR
Take Agena results. Then multiply them by 1.05-1.1. There is your theoretical Deneb result with the 5-10 % IPC improvement over Agena. 3 GHz Agena scores 100 points in test X. How does 4 GHz Phenom II perform? 100 * 1.333 * (usually take something between 1.05 and 1.1). E.g. 100 * 1.3333 * 1.07 * 0.96(scaling factor) = 136.95. Thats 36.95 % faster than 3 GHz Agena. What about 2.6 GHz Agena? 100*0.86666*1.04(scaling factor, inefficiency from going from 2.6 to 3.) = 90.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
However, that assumes that NB clock scales with the core clock which it does not AFAIK. But that should be roughly estimate.
You knew this already, I know it.
I really think ZDnet simply was mistaken. Else it would be because of the 16MB cache? But I bet ZDnet is just mistaken and mixed things up from the test to article part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
I don't think the power consumption is indicative of FOUR X-rated Dunningtons. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Not that it is going to make any great difference to the finished product either way, but I wonder how much of Deneb's improvements are due to the process and how much are due to fixing issues which plagued Barcelona?Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Barcelona was quite a rushed design afterall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
If it's a four-processor board then 4x X7460s = 24 cores? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by ZDNet
an Intel four-processor board with the 7300 'Caneland' chipset and two Xeon X7460 'Dunnington' processors, each with six 2.66GHz cores. The test system had a single SATA disk.
I'm certain you can put 2 cores in a 4-way board. Isn't that hard after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k