yeah, specially in games, with server mobo, ECC ram, I say pfff too LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
Printable View
yeah, specially in games, with server mobo, ECC ram, I say pfff too LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
I don't see i7 as part of Intel's normal range for now, so I expect all the pricing action to be on the Penryn side over the next few months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
What NB clocks did they run on this Opteron?Also the ram in question is ECC DDR2-800,compared to 1066 on Agena and C2Q.
I've just seen the update in the German version of the article:
http://www.gamestar.de/hardware/test...nom_ii_x4.html
So the ram was CL6 ECC DDR2-800.One can assume that CL4/5 DDR2-1066 ram memory would give an extra boost over the one they used.Also we don't know what NB clocks will Deneb run at.It may be the same 2.2Ghz as Shanghai parts,or it may be higher than that.All of this coupled with a few BIOS settings we don't know about(CnQ active?<CPU TWEAK ACTIVE?-those are non existent in server bios i presume) can't give us a valid picture how exactly Deneb will perform.Quote:
Update: Response to some reader questions regarding the Opteron test system:
The Geforce GTX 280 was at full PCI Express 16x-speed connections (it is in the bios on the motherboard to configure server). As DDR2 memory came-800-RAM (CL6) with error correction (ECC, mode: Basic) to use. Since the Phenom X4 II (unlike the Opteron system) to show even faster RAM modules supports, should the gaming performance yet at the same clock by a few percentage points increase.
But even in this short and not exactly accurate simulation,Deneb shows some massive gains in UT3 and Winrar(which is VERY sensitive to memory setting on K8/K10).
Are you saying for the first time in history, Intel aregoing to depart from their pricing scheme? I'm sorry, but allevidence indicates otherwise. The QX 9775 and QX 9770 are both siginificantly more expensive than i965 XE. The Q9650 price > i940, and Q9550 price > i920. WHY? Ci7 prices have no where to go but down, especially given marginal performance improvement over penryn - a drop-in upgrade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
also that sever board is running on Ht 1.0.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
No sever until 09 will have Ht3.0/or Hht3.1
Not really a massive gain in winrar, Is it? I would expect deneb to be better than this if not hindered by server parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Obviously i7 prices will go down at some point, but I don't think any downwards price movements for it will take place in December or be announced in December in response to anything from AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
I do think Penryn prices will be adjusted because of both AMD and i7.
Well i told you what matters for Winrar:it's extremely sensitive to memory subsystem(if you don't believe me,check with someone else).Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
I can jump ten percent with my X2 only by going from cas 5 to cas4.Obviously larger L3 pays a role here,but even on a "crippled" (server) platform,that opteron shows 15% gain clock for clock over Agena which ran with uber fast ddr2 ram(non ECC too).
I can bet when AM3 version of Deneb comes out it will eat the AM2+ version of Deneb in Winrar.That's why you see Core i7 perform stellar in this test:3 channel DDR3 IMC + Turbo + HT +large L3 = massive gain.Deneb will lack turbo and HT but will have fast DDR2/DDR3 memory on it's disposal and a large chunk of L3(with lower latency than the one in Barcelona\Agena).
15% on this "desktop unfriendly" platform for a "die shrink" is a great score IMO.
Seems gamestart guy's had access to the shanghai server tecchannel.de used for their review.
Tecchannel also had an 2356 barcelona there for testing. I wish they had run the benchmarks with that chip for comparison.
Tecchannel said in their review they could not run ddr2-800 mode so they used ddr2-667 there. I would assume gamestar had to use the same settings so that note that they used ddr2-800 cl6 is odd.
Winrar on 9950BE looks like ganged mode, would be ~10% faster in unganged mode.
YOU are treating them separate. I AM treating them as already fixed based on clock/multi/cache. So price reductions would affect all segments. Of course it won't be equal % reductions. The whole idea that Ci7 (in terms of Intel pricing schemes) is going to in another segment all by itself becasue it is a newer technology is not supported by past or present pricing schemes. It will not happen in th future either, except when penryn is declared EOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
We know that Shanghai at 2.7Ghz is rated at 75 WATTS , But does any one about wattage rating of Deneb 2.8Ghz & 3.0Ghz parts.?? :help:
Reason I am asking this question is if Deneb is rated at much higher wattage than Shanghai , then it could be due to NB running above 2.2Ghz on Deneb compared to shanghai. :shrug:
Now if Deneb does have higher than 2.2Ghz NB clock , then from above review I think it will be very close between 45nm C2Q and 45nm PII , Hell it could even be faster. ;)
That 75W is ACP rating for Shanghai. The 2.8GHz and 3GHz Denebs are rated at 125W TDP. The AM3 versions will be 95W TDP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaber
Intel have declared i7 to be a niche high end product for now, with more consumer friendly versions to be released in Q3 09. So in this sense, i7 is not like the introduction of Conroe or Penryn which were mainstream immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Is it your contention that when Intel likely next announces pricing adjustments on the Penryn range, that i7 will be substantially altered too?
Coz I think i7's official prices probably won't change at all till Q2 09 at the earliest.
Expect at least another 20% gain (to add to that 15%), going from ECC 800 CL6 to NO ECC 1066 CL5. I've done a quick run with winrar 3.80 (Phenom 9850). Five runs (average): 1226 (667 CL5); 1410 (800 CL4). Thats 15% gain.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
So the niche range of cpus are actually cheaper than old technology. Where is that declaration? Maybe you need to familiarize yourself with Intel's pricing scheme. Even the QX6850 is more expensive than i965XEQuote:
Originally Posted by Chad Boga
http://www.google.com/products?hl=en...num=4&ct=title
Q6700 (because of the 10x multi) and slightly higher clocks 2.66ghz is in the same price segment as i920 and even Q9550.
http://www.google.com/products/catal...ult#ps-sellers
Do you see any pattern here?
Thanks for the numbers :).Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
As i said,Winrar is very sensitive to memory subsystem on K10.
Deneb + fast(CL4) 1066 DDR2 ram+high(er) NB clock+much larger L3 = big gain in Winrar.
They are products Intel has discontinued are they not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Regardless, all that shows is that there is no pressing need for further price reductions on i7 anytime soon, but that the Penryn/Conroe generation could do with some price trimming.
Nope, I am happy for you to explain it to me though.Quote:
Guys if you want to discuss intel pricing policies there is a place for that and it's not called Phenom II 6Ghz +OVERCLOCK thread. Not trying to flame or anything,just not liking the direction this thread has taken as you two started to argue whether core i7 and penryn will drop in price...
Yeah I was wondering what the best way to address discussing this issue is, but not sure if it is worthy of a new thread and wasn't sure how long we might go on for.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
What!!!!? You see no connection between PII hitting 6Ghz and Intel pricing?
here is my run of 3.2ghz stock NB stock HT and 1066 5-5-5-15 2x1GB ram..
I noticed frequency doesn't push my multi threaded RAR score much at all...
NB OC'ing helps more..
http://3800z24.info/Phenom/9950/32bit/3.2ghz_rar.JPG
Wow, Intel needed to tell us that the 6ghz overclock by AMD was not what we should expect from these cpu's in a real world environment?.........they really care about us.......Thanks for the info Intel:rofl::ROTF:
That depends on how much DI you have at your disposal :D I bet I could run all week long If i could keep myself awake to keep the pot filled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Titan7171
cascade or phase anyone? mine ran for a good year before i got bored......
"not a real world environment?"
You know, I used to have snow drifts in my living room while benching in Ohio. You can't put it past some of us.
wonder what evidence Intel has that AMD used a "tricked" chip.......if they end up wrong about that they are gonna look desperate doing theres.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Kayin
HT and NB are slower and of course ram etc ....That is most likely the cause.. since that game see's no impromement requardless of CPU..GPU bottle neck there..Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
they already look desperate.....see its cause and effect..........They have to do it cause AMD did it.Quote:
Originally Posted by G0ldBr1ck
Reminds me of the line from Ironman
AMD did this in a cave........with a box of scraps!:ROTF:
A 3Ghz Opteron should be faster than the Q9650 if I reference SharkyExtreme. :O
However... SharkyExtreme used different resolution and different graphics card. :nono:Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Those UT3 and winrar results show some hope. Still let's wait for phenom with 1066 ram and 790GX chipset. I would say it's a significant difference. I expect the NB frequency to be at 2400mhz (agenas had a bit more Hurz too than barcies if I remembered correctly)
Exactly. The 35% increase in UT3 is a very good result! :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by donitsi
Actually the northbridge on all Barcelona chips at least for the single socket 75W ACP ran at 2ghz, which is faster than all Agena chips except the 9850 and the 9950. But I do agree that we should be seeing the nb on the 920 and 940 at around 2.4-2.5ghz. Hopefully since the chips work so much better under cold now we can see some massive overclocks to 3ghz and beyond on the nb combined with the 5ghz+ overclocks. You can bet that I will spend my time working on a 1:1 overclock of them both when I get the 940 hooked up to my vapo.
I ran a few comparisons here. I though those shanghais all come with 2.2GHz NB?
http://www.abload.de/img/results1cxt.jpg
Their 9950BE result looks like mine with mem at DDR2-800 CL6 unganged. So if shanghai/deneb scales similar to my 9950be the deneb result at 3GHz mem DDR2-1066 CL5 would be 32,5% faster, means ~2024KB/s which is 16% faster than the phenom at those speeds.
I beleive it is running at 1000mhz (i guess 2000mhz effective).. due to chiptset limitations.. The desktop solution have faster support, which is why Agena can run 2000mhz(4000mhz effective) with 950/9850 and 1800mhz(3600mhz effective) will all other models. If this server can 2000mhz(4000 effective) then the new AMD server chipsets won't be as much of an improvement as stated by AMD. Although, that 2.7ghz chip is supose to have a 2200mhz (4400mhz effective) with new AMD chipsets that will come out. we can assume that Phenom II will share this same 2200mhz if not more based on this being what the high end Opterons hold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldguy932
Or am a I way off here????? :confused:
Partly, only the HT speed is limited to 1000MHz not the NB speed I used 1GHz for my 800-CL6 benches above. BTW: My results under winxp 32bit are higher than those vista 64bit results.Quote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
Very interesting comment. I believe the word of mouth by select people are leading them to believe AMD definatly has a nice chip on it's hands or they wouldn't be bothered at all. When AMD revised the Phenom series with the 50's series CPU's Intel didn't bat an eye because word of mouth showed the Phenom 50's series wan't that stellar, but the Phenom II has them very worried. AMD said that they are VERY confident with Denebs/Shanghai and the chips surpassed their expectations. So word of mouth + confident AMD= A worried Intel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzman
Pricing wise I have always loved AMD and I am glad Intel may have to revise the prices of their over priced chips. All the Pro-Intel folks should THANK AMD for things like this. We can expect a ton of Intel folks shifting to AMD soon.:cool: The changes AMD made at their company will pay off VERY soon!
AMD="The Smarter Choice":up:
The difference in rated wattage between Shanghai and Deneb makes me wonder if Deneb will run NB at 2.4G or 2.6G.Quote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
well AM2+ board can run NB up to 2.6ghz AM3 can run it up to 3.2ghz.
each cpu should be able to reach 2.6ghz but not all of them do.
I have the same assumtion.. but we will have to wait and see.. Some leaked specs show 2200mhz..but makes me wonder why the 2600mhz ready on the boards if AMD did not plan on using it..Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaber
Overclock headroom maybe?:shrug: I've seen some people hitting CRAZY NB speed with just a standardQuote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
Phenom.
Where did you get this info?Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
I wouldn't be surprised if the AM3 boards would support the HT 3.1 standard as well. http://www.hypertransport.org/defaul...Specifications
I ran my nb all the way up to 2.75 at 1:1 with one of my 9850's under cold. So I was at 2.75 cpu/2.75 nb/2.75 htt. Its just as fast at memory intensive situations as a 2.9cpu/2.3nb/2.3htt. Not completely sure about the memory settings, probably all done on the 400mhz divider because it was before I got the ram I have in my systems now. The nb on current phenoms does amazing under cold compared to air. The same 9850 on air could do 3.0cpu/2.4nb/2.4htt relatively stable, not completely because it was my SB600 board and I haven't done any testing since I got my SB750 board. I'll be picking up parts for a new system at the end of my winter break assuming that's still when AMD is releasing them. Completely free tuesdays and thursdays will be pretty good, maybe I can find some ln2 to use in the room, my roomate shouldn't mind :rolleyes:
Yeah, it has to be with a fan.
Only 90 watt or less processors can be passively cooled.
The P2 940 is 125w TDP.
Therefore it would fry if it didn't have a fan to get rid of the heat specially overclocked.
It was with a fan.Quote:
Originally Posted by lo squartatore
What? You expected a 4Ghz overclock on a 45nm chip(loaded with crysis and far cry 2) to be handled with a fanless passive heatsink??Are you serious? Show me a yorkfield or even worse core i7 at that clock that can work fanless under load...Yeah,the result would be 2 melted boards and probably 2 dead chips(or maybe they'd have survived due to thermal protection kicking in).The temperatures would literary be in 100+ degrees Celsius range.Quote:
Originally Posted by lo squartatore
Please be serious...
FIXED!Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
No it doesn't have 1/20 "leackage"(you meant leakage,right?).Quote:
Originally Posted by lo squartatore
Please don't post nonsense here.You heard someone said some aspects of AMD's 45nm process have better characteristics than intel's 45 nm hk/mg and now all of a sudden AMD's process has 1/20th of the leakage.Btw that is not correct:
Even though AMD's 45nm SOI process indeed shows some great characteristics and the chips run very cool at higher frequencies,it's very unreasonable to think 4Ghz(overclocked and overvolted!) chip can run on a fanless cooler with only a passive heatsink...Quote:
The transistor drive current for AMD's 45-nm devices is much lower than that of the Intel HKMG transistors. But power consumption is quickly becoming a high priority for server chips. AMD's transistors exhibit very low channel leakage. Our transistor benchmarks indicates that leakage current is less than one-third of the value measured on AMD's 65-nm process. It's also significantly lower than the Intel 45-nm HKMG process. In fact the Ion/Ioff ratio for AMD's PFET is nearly 10 times better than that for the Intel PFET.
Like I said,be serious.
No offense,but don't "fix" my posts and then quote me like i said it(even though you just left one part out).Put it in " " if you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
BTW,what was not correct in the part you left out?
Lol yeah,"attak" me for what?For showing how clueless you are? What you are writing isn't making ANY SENSE.You understand that?
BTW,i would like to see that "attak" in bad English,just for a laugh.
Informal..you seem tense:p:...
Does anyone know of a decent site that did shanghai benchmarks..? more then spec etc..
Sorry :D.Quote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
No website has done a thorough review of Shanghai yet,and that's a sad fact unfortunately... AnandTech tried to review it but failed to deliver a thorough review(they stated BIOS issues so i guess it could be a reason).
Techreport's review is late too,should have been finished a week(or so) ago.
i KNOW.. they (techreport) said a week ago that they had been in testing for 2 weeks and will be wrapped up soon.. what happened.. is AMD hold NDA over parts of Shanghai too...? oh wellQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
I've been looking for Shanghai benchies almost daily......not much out there.:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
I managed to find these 'post-launch' results.....a couple of them even include George 'Intel Fanboi' Ou's i7 babblings.....yeah, couldn't live without George's insightful comments, could we?!
http://news.zdnet.com/2424-9595_22-251980.html
http://www.tecchannel.de/server/proz...i/index20.html
http://formortals.com/Home/tabid/36/...6/Default.aspx
http://www.anandtech.com/weblog/showpost.aspx?i=528
http://www.fluent.com/software/fluen....4.x/index.htm
Bottom line.....Intel holds a smaller (than vs Barcelona) lead in single-thread, SSE performance while AMD extends its lead a bit in FP and energy efficiency.:clap:
Waiting for Deneb.........
Anybody saw this ?
http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=359342
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/imag...ea01696aad.jpg
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/imag...fcf31169d9.jpg
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/imag...6e1446313a.jpg
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/imag...a4e1257410.jpg
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/imag...b79b46edf1.jpg
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/imag...3bb1b138aa.jpg
Source seems to be expreview, but not longer available :confused:
OOOOHH...........tell me this ain't so!!!!!!!!:mad:
http://74.125.93.104/translate_c?hl=...egUoJ0XQ7jbIRw
WTF??????????
I hope their talking about a possible delay to AM3 versions, not AM2+!!!!!
Not bad at all, but it doesn't help that the PII is the highest clocked chip and won 1 test. I'd like to see PII vs. Q9650 for clock to clock comparison test. I doubt AMD will be selling the PII x4 940 for lower than $250. That Q9550 will be a real spoiler for AMD, because it's a drop-in chip for s775.
I think that it is just a guessing. Here is the original article. We've already discussed it. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRicer
Yeah, saw the date of 11/26 and thought it was something new........feel better now, facial twitching is subsiding........recovering!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverRicer
Ya, I highly doubt Phenom II 920 and 940 AM2+ chips will be delayed...
well if they were true.. AMD had them pulled...but they look spot on.. if all here say is true.. I am happy with those results.. at least they are more real world gaming and not scaled down 800x600 scores..Quote:
Originally Posted by Boschwanza
Has anyone done any benchmarks of the 9850 9950 with SB750 and higher then 30ghz oc? If I had the software i would run them..but I only have a AMD setup..
If those are in fact true, and AMD gets their pricing right they have have a great shot at pulling of a coup just like the HD4000 series GPU's that came out this summer. I just want to see something that is concrete before I invest in that bad boy though.
Seems very plausible so they pulled it out.Thanks for posting these ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by Boschwanza
Actually it won FC2 and Crysis warhead ,not 1.It came close second in Dead Space-6% behind and Clear Sky-1fps behind Turbo clocked i940(so that means per clock it was probably faster than i940).World at war and World in Conflict never favored Phenom(I) from the start(compiler?),but Phenom II makes up tremendous ground in these two games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
All in all,if true,in games at least ,Phenom II @ 3GHz is very competitive with both Core2Q and Core i7.We need some OCed benchmarks at say ~4Ghz for all 3 CPUs to see how they scale(in games GPU rules though).
My bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Maybe we're not looking at the same graph so here is what I'm looking at:
The lower clocked C2Q Q9550 is actually head to head with PII 940 and beats it by a wider margin, Imagine would Q9650 would do at 3Ghz, just like PII 940. Now I'm not a mathematician so you do the math.Quote:
STALKER CLEAR SKY, 1680x1050
Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 41.7
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 41.2
CRYSIS WARHEAD, 1680x1050
Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 35.7
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 35.0
DEAD SPACE, 1680x1050
Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 219.0
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 214.4
FAR CRY 2, 1680x1050
Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 54.4
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 46.2
WORLD AT WAR, 1680x1050
Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 48.7
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 57.3
WORLD IN CONFLICT, 1680x1050
Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 92.7
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 95.0
Now expect the C2Q line to drop in price around January; I expect the Q9550, the PII 940's main competitor (imho) to drop to around $250, I expect Intel to do nasty things, price-wise with this particular chip against the PII 940. Expect Ci7 920 to be hover just below the Q9550 in price. With the above performance from the Q9550, AMD will always be forced to price the PII 940closely to the Q9550 since the PII 940 offers no performance advantage over this chip; and it is z775 compatible.
I think talks of ATi 4000 series and Nvidia is a little bit premature here; Intel has too many good weapons to fight this battle.
weird last I saw at those levels the i7 shouldn't be any bit faster then a yorkfield.
But fairly nice results for the P2 so far...I hope it can match both yorkfield and nehalem clock for clock in games.
My point was that AMD has finally gotten themselves a competetive product. It will also go along way to regaining some cred and building back the market share. It may not be as much of a coup as the ATI/NV battle that happened but if they can launch this right they have a good chance to stay alive and start to come back to the black side of business.
I'm very impressed with PII in that shootout, the problem though is as you point out, launching it right. For a company that needs to make some decent profit, its going to be a bit tough, out-pricing a competitor's chip that is already below $300 and has no where to go but down. :horse:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bgriffs
Wasn't PII only suposed to match c2d 65nm? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
You right, Intel ain't Nvidia, but K10 65nm to K10 45nm, feels a bit like R600 to R700, better then expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Overall things are going like expected, AMD is closing the gap in the desktop, Intel will be huge in the server arena.
I was looking at both Core i7 and C2Q numbers.With Turbo Ci94 runs at >3Ghz,while C2Q has 6% lower clock than PhII(note that in games,especially in the tested high resolutions,fps doesn't go up linearly with CPU clock ,but it depends more on the uarchitecture itself) :
Clear Sky: PhII 41.7fps, Ci940 42.5fps ,C2Q(45nm) 41.2fps => Phenom II sits between the two chips which is in lign with pure clockspeed since Corei7 is above 3Ghz while C2Q is below(2.83Ghz).Test seems mostly GPU bound at that level with cosmetic difference between the 3 CPUs. Core i7 is just 1.9% faster than PhII while PhII is just 1% faster than C2Q.
Dead Space: PhII 219fps, Ci940 233fps ,C2Q(45nm) 214fps => Similar to clear sky.Ci7 is 6% faster than PhII(while having a slight clock advantage over PhII thanks to Turbo) ,while PhII is 2.3% faster than C2Q @ 2.83Ghz.As you can see,since the res. is 16x10, the fps doesn't rise linearly with CPU clock speed but is more dependent on GPU.The lower res. could have told us another story.
Crysis Warhead is clearly GPU limited at 16x10 ,but still we have some differentiation : PhII on top with 35.7 fps, Ci940 at bottom with 33.9fps ,C2Q(45nm) 2nd with 35fps.This tells us that in that game and game resolution,PhII vs C2Q will be virtually a tie per clock(again i emphasize the results don't scale linearly as you increase CPU clock due to resolution used where GPU is the key factor-not that CPU doesn't play an important role though).
FarCry 2: PhII 54.4fps, Ci940 48.4fps ,C2Q(45nm) 46.2fps .Clear advantage for PhII in this test(no even if we account for clock difference it's quite a lead-11% in front of C2Q per clock).The difference is more pronounced than in any other title tested there(maybe because of the dedicated CPU test just as in Warhead case?) .
World at war and World in Conflict: these two were always "dogs" on previous phenom so i guess there is some special optimization going on there(phenom was running the game just fine,but was lagging in fps when compared to c2q,difference being as high as 50% which is hardly a case in any other game apart from these 2).PhII makes up tremendous ground and ties c2q in WiC(lags 6% in clock for clock terms) and lags 17% clock for clock in World at War. WiC could be cache limited as we see 25% jump(per clock) with PhII,while Ci7 and C2Q still have overall cache advantage over PhII and manage a slight lead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleZero
No, I think agena was to match 65nm. Deneb is supposed to match c2d 45nm and k10.5 supposed to match nehalem?
Where does it indicate TURBO mode was on for Ci7 940? Are you assuming so? And why is it when PII doesn't fare well, you try to downplay it? I thought there were many core optimizations done over PI? :rolleyes:
Despite your effort to explain this away, it is quite clear to any discerning person that a C2Q @ 3Ghz, would win 5 out of those 6 tests, the 6th test could possibly swing either way. THIS IS VERY GOOD FOR PII, NONETHELESS, I don't know why you want to look past the data though. :shrug:
"k10.5" is Deneb.. BTW ,K10.5 is more of a nickname for Deneb/Shanghai.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
Based on these benches, Intel can use the Q9550 to compete with PII. The Ci7 looks to be a great workstation part where better multithreaded software is available.
Hmm.. I thought k10.5 would be the hK metal gates part.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Games don't scale with CPU clock that well.So i can use that logic and say AMD can use 920 model(2.8Ghz) and match intel's Q9550(2.83Ghz) part.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
And no,"K10.5" was a name given by Fudzilla. There is no publicly known "name" for high k 45nm K10 part.
Nope, AMD has the option of adding the HK metal gates for later in the 45nm process but its looking like its going to be 32nm parts that make that switch.
I agree and that's why I said based on these benches. By match I mean price wise.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
The problem with relying on multithreading is that AMD can retaliate easily with 6 cores.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
Yes, Intel will probably do the same (6 on 32nm), with AMD having 2 Shanghai/Istanbul (8/12c) dies on one chip as a strikeback.
So server/workstation side, it's rather futile. There is not going to be a Conroe like 2 year lead. It's 6 months - 1 year at best. Sandy and Bulldozer should shake things up a little, but they're both emphasizing on special instructions like AVX/SSE, I wonder how much more core improvements they can have.
Oh, and about the benchmarks. Remember- this is the "oh-so" inferior and narrow K10 architecture that only issues 3 instructions per clock, unlike Core 2. It getting even/beating the C2 is something quite remarkable.
I'm telling you that games just don't scale well with CPU clock,especially in 16x10 :rolleyes: .You can say 3Ghz C2Q will perform better than 2.83Ghz one and that's just fine.But it will still be C2Q with only 6% higher clock in a game that is GPU limited(in 16x10).It will hardly be 6% faster in those settings than a 2.83Ghz C2Q..I think you can understand this? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
PhII over PhI is not just a clock uplift but a core and cache one.Total cache amount is doubled and some core tweaks can help too.So PhII is more than a C2Q@ 3Ghz compared to 2.83Ghz one.That's the point i was trying to make.
edit: Turbo is by default always ON...
6 cores on 45nm will make the die 50% larger so I don't see this as a wise choice for the desktop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Acually one Shanghai/Deneb core is 15.3mm2.The 6 core part(as shown by Hans De Vries) would be a sub 300mm2 chip.Nehalem single core size(one core on the monolithic die) takes up ~24.4mm2 or 1.6x more than in Shanghai(SMT among other things).Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
http://www.chip-architect.com/news/A...e_Istanbul.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Hans De Vries
I see. It makes good sense then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
But you don't know IF TURBO MODE was turned OFF for this shootout (for a clearer comparison). Usually, if these performace enhancers are turned on, there is usually a disclaimer. Even if it wasn't, it is a known fact that Nehalem generally offers NO improvements over C2Q in gaming.
Well, accrding to you, the benchmarks are GPU limited, so I guess:
CPU Effect = 0
Therefore:
PII 920 = Q9550 = PII 940 = Ci7 940
In case it's hard for you to understand, my argument is that that measly 6% you talk of, is enough to make up for the marginal difference (yes marginal difference) between Q9550 and PII 940. Mind you, not LINEARLY, if it was, it'll beat it by a relatively bigger margin.
This one needs quoting:
What you're saying will be true if the margins were bigger than is represented. Don't try throw dust into this; I'm looking at fractions of fps difference with compared to a relatively healthy 6%. I think it's enough to make up for those fractions, regardless of uarch, don't you? About uarch improvements to PII 2, my point was if that is the case, why isn't PII fairing any better in certain games than PI?Quote:
PhII over PhI is not just a clock uplift but a core and cache one.Total cache amount is doubled and some core tweaks can help too.So PhII is more than a C2Q@ 3Ghz compared to 2.83Ghz one.That's the point i was trying to make.
Finally, let's appeal to logic here:
IN ALL the AMD SLIDES WITH SEEN SO FAR, the Q9650 has not been featured. WHY? Its STOCK CLOCK IS 3GHZ TOO? WHY IN YOUR OPINION, INFORMAL, HASN'T ANYONE TESTED DENEB ALONGSIDE Q9650? :yepp: YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE.
First of all,we have obscure slides with no configurations at all.Turbo is out of the box feature and is always on.It is just as SMT ,a built in feature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
Second,your premise is false.CPU effect is not = 0.Therefore your conclusion is invalid.CPU effect is not as important in 16x10 as it is in 800x600(in which btw no1 games).In low res. you could probably see some differences that come from game engine optimizations(compilers,datasets used etc.).
In which games PhII doesn't fare any better than Phenom I?In the GPU limited ones where all CPUs have closely grouped scores? :rolleyes:
As for the last question about slides and pricing,did it occur to you Q9650 is not priced the same as PhII 940?? AMD done-if the slide is from AMD in the first place- the price per. comparison by comparing systems that will cost similarly.PhII 940 will not cost the same as Q9650 and is logical not to compare it with that model. Have you heard of Radeon 4850/70 card? You know that 4870 model is at 80-85% the perf. of GT200(GTX280),somewhere even higher ,while costing A LOT less. That's called great value.
It looks like CPU does count for something then. YOU'VE BEEN EXPOSED. YOU WERE MAKING A CLOCK FOR CLOCK ARGUMENT, NOW WHEN IT SUITS YOU, YOU SWITCH TO A "BANG FOR BUCK, BUT HEY, LOOK OUT FOR THE Q9550. IT'S GOING TO OFFER BETTER VALUE THAN PII 940 THE WAY THINGS LOOKING, UNLESS AMD IS GOING TO PRICE THE PII 940 @ $250.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Sorry for caps, my keyboard was acting up.
Calm down,are you getting excited over there?:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucker2k
You may have exposed yourself.I made a clock for clock comparison because you asked me to do it(remember the math comment?).You seem to not understand that games at 16x10 are not CPU limited.CPU helps though,but as you can see,a cache+core uplift means more than pure Mhz uplift(PhII vs PhI).
Second,again you asked me why no Q9650 in the comparisons and when i give you logical response you go all wild with *closed ears with both hands* na-na-na-na comment :p: .
I told you why there is no comparison with Q9650.I can tell you it would fare better in those games but 6% uplift in freq. wouldn't lead to that bigger scores,so it would fall in line with Phenom II @ 3Ghz(again back to GPU limitation @ 16x10,for 100th time).
How about we wait for real reviews instead this one which isn't online anymore? I want to see how all 4 CPU generations perfrom in real gaming situations,with SLI/CF or 4870X2/GTX280,in high res. and full details.hat's how you can measure how one chip performs and will it suit your needs in this type of usage.
What bigger? Are you pretending to not see the fractions between PII 940 and Q9550? Price-wise, the Ci7 940 is not in the same price segment as the Q9550. There, your price argument is out the window what next? :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Do you see fractions too?
Quote:
STALKER CLEAR SKY, 1680x1050
Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 41.7
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 41.2
.5
CRYSIS WARHEAD, 1680x1050
Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 35.7
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 35.0
.7
DEAD SPACE, 1680x1050
Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 219.0
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 214.4
4.4 (about 1.8%)
FAR CRY 2, 1680x1050
Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 54.4
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 46.2
8.2 (16%)
WORLD AT WAR, 1680x1050
Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 48.7
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 57.3
8.6 (16%+)
WORLD IN CONFLICT, 1680x1050
Phenom II x4 940 3Ghz = 92.7
C2Q Q9550 2.83Ghz = 95.0
2.3
It's like arguing with a tree.I really see no point here.You fail to understand the basics.My opinion is that Core i7 was never the intended chip to compete with from price perspective.Maybe the lowest part(i920) was.The charts we saw(they are offline now) were representing 4 CPU generations. It's clear since all chips were there apart from 65nm C2Q.Agena was there for PhII comparison (and we see the core +cache improvements nicely),C2Q and i7 were 2 latest fom intel.Last one is there simply because it is released (it would be stupid to miss out a whole gen. in one review) and is similar in clock to all the chips since 920 would be too low looking at the def. clocks.Q9550 is 6% away in clock terms and closest in price as things stand right now since PhII 940 will cost around 265-275 US Dollars.Q9550 is 250 bucks.
Again you quote yourself for who knows what time in vain.I did the math since you asked me to do it.Remember.It's 16x10,CPU plays smaller role and therefore you see smaller differentiation when chips with similar cache size and clock are in question(12MBs vs 8Mbs,2.83Ghz vs 3Ghz).Agena falls a bit short because it lacks those larger caches and CPU clock,hardly surprising eh?
Tell me,what kind of results from Q9650 you expect to see in 16x10 in these games?Do you think it will score 6% faster than Q9550 in these settings?Hmm k.
Still you failed to see RV770 vs GT200 similarity and not responded to it(yes Phenoms will be sub 280$ region,apart from early price jacking that always happen).
I don't think the reason they don't compare to Q9650 is because of price difference but because of performance difference. If the PII 940 was able to be competitive with the Q9650 then you would see Amd showing slides left and right that their ~$300 part can compete with a ~$600 Intel part.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
On the second part, the 4870 cost less then the GT200 because the die is less then half as big 250mm2 vs 600mms, thus cost less to manufacture. Unfortunely for Amd their is no advantage there in the CPU front since the k10 is 260mm2 and the c2q is 214mm2.
GUYS!!!! what I find most interesting about the scores, is how much better Phenom II was over Phenom.. I know. I know.. 400MHZ more... but stock.. it is finally a competive clock...that in its self is a much desirable improvement.. get AMD in the same playing field finally....Added Unlocked (again) multi...it is a no brainer OC...cheap swap in for current owners.. and cheaper then i7 ...so it will finally be a option to Intel (compitition is grand ;))
I wish objective people reading this thread would come forward and offer their opinions. It is obvious Informal is picking and choosing as he wishes. It's now a generational comparison, way to go. This is where I stop however, because your arguments are like moving targets, they're shifting by the minute. I'm out b4 this degenerates into name-calling. So why is there no 65 nm C2Q? uh uhuh.....Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Whatever.You asked me to do the math i did it for you.You asked for my opinion(that's my opinion not a fact) about Q9650 and you ignored it.You fail to understand games are mostly GPU bound at higher resolutions and that CPU plays smaller role(but yet not unimportant as you can see from the charts).Now you say you would go for name calling(i say you would go since i wouldn't for sure).I rest my case.
As for die are comment by qurious63ss ,there is more to it.It's double patterning(intc) versus immersion lito(amd) ;DFM advantage intel had before is erased when AMD moved to 45nm(they use DFM now too),although AMD used more metal layers with Barcelona and i'm not sure what is the case with Core i7 now. Penryn for sure is cheaper to make since it's MCM.Core i7 i can't say. AMD will have Propus core with no L3,a budget one if you like,and it will be a lot smaller leveraging small core size in Shanghai.This one will be the "money maker" chip since it will be small and relatively fast.
These charts look as phony as the fabricated Deneb benchmarks posted exactly one week ago on the "markbench" blog, which, coincidentally(?), were also first propagated on the VR-zone forums. by a new poster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boschwanza
^ The charts do look dodgy but the guy who posted said he got it from xpreview and that apparently they're missing from xpreview now. I don't see why anyone would want to fake those scores like that where the Deneb gets outclassed in some games, yet manages to beat the i7 in others. Kinda pointless since you're not really showing that one cpu beats another :S
Looks dodgy alright...
Silentjack07
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2
And those 2 posts were all here http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=359342
Good points.Seems very fishy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostbuster