Intel Q9450 vs Phenom 9850 - ATI HD3870 X2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

Race Driver Grid

---

Ok, I downloaded it... how do you want me to test? There is no way to record a demo, not that I have found. How do you want me to get reproducible results?

Ok, I tell you what ... i will do it similar to what your link provides. I will gun it for 15 seconds straight ahead and capture frame rate... this won't be hugely representative, but should suffice.

If I do this, will you accept the result even if it contradicts your link? Because I am gonna test both the Phenom and QX9650 both at 2.5 GHz with identical configurations, not that scatter configuration data that is in the other forum.

gosh = bioduken
http://forums.overclockersclub.com/i...owtopic=154579

I honestly empathise with everyone's frustration... multi-CPU servers running high res games... there is no hypothesis, there is no scientific method... only bits and pieces of borrowed information...

*sigh* this thread is going to continue to get worse lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hardnrg

gosh = bioduken
http://forums.overclockersclub.com/i...owtopic=154579

I honestly empathise with everyone's frustration... multi-CPU servers running high res games... there is no hypothesis, there is no scientific method... only bits and pieces of borrowed information...

*sigh* this thread is going to continue to get worse lol

---

Yeah, he has been spamming every forum that will keep him around....

:) What's gonna' happen is a lot of useful and good data both generated and linked will show up, anything that does not agree with his model will be brushed aside with 'i need to see the code'. ;)

But the GRID run is a good experiment. If I can figure out how to get it to give me the same race over and over.

Deja-vu :)

Hopefully XS doesn't get to 19 pages like we did! I was screaming for a lock at like 5 :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puck

Deja-vu :)

Hopefully XS doesn't get to 19 pages like we did! I was screaming for a lock at like 5 :shrug:

---

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I have the GRID data. Plotting it up now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

Ok, I downloaded it... how do you want me to test? There is no way to record a demo, not that I have found. How do you want me to get reproducible results?

Ok, I till you what ... i will do it similar to what your link provides. I will gun it for 15 seconds straight ahead and capture frame rate... this won't be hugely representative, but should suffice.

If I do this, will you accept the result even if it contradicts your link? Because I am gonna test both the Phenom and QX9650 both at 2.5 GHz with identical configurations, not that scatter configuration data that is in the other forum.

---

Ok, here you go.....

First some details. The two compare systems are documented here: http://forum.xcpus.com/motherboard-c...d.html?garpg=7
Here is a pic of the details of the HW:
http://forum.xcpus.com/gallery/d/4731-4/IMG_7962.jpg

There is one significant difference in the HW described in the above link, I had to replace the Dell 17" monitor with a HP 2207 to access the 1680x1050 resolution. Also, read through the entire build setup -- I am using profile 1.1, which has DDR2-1067 however, all tests were done with DDR2-800 CL4 timings.

GRID does not have a demo record or replay save option that I could find, therefore, I had to do everything consistently as possible. It worked better than I had imagined. First, I installed the GRID demo and ran my first test simply going to the graphics options screen and selecting Ultra. This actually defaulted the resolution to 1024x768, so I tested there. I then repeated the test by forcing the resolution to 1680x1050 (the max of the monitor). All other game options were default as installed, I did not change any other settings other than as described by the graphics screen setup above. Finally, on the QX9650, I rebooted and set the FSB to 200 Mhz, and the multiplier to 12.5 to achieve 2.5 GHz.

All clocks were the same, 2.5 GHz (default stock for the Phenom 9850).

First I launched FRAPs version 2.9.4, I then launched a game and started a race. At the initial prompt screen, I hit enter for the first race track, enter again to select the default setup (car, driver, etc). The loading screen then appears, I wait for the first hint of the screen coming back after the loading completes to press F11 to start counting FPS with FRAPs. This allows the first 3-5 seconds to capture the fly through to the start of the race. I then allow the race to count down as normal, and press and held the up arrow key. After about 2 seconds I tapped the right arrow key twice (if you don't you crash in 10 seconds) then the left arrow key once, all this time keeping the up arrow key depressed. I allow the car to crash into the what ever car it hits as the group takes the first right turn. After the crash settles, I then press the F11 key to complete the logging of FRAPs.

The Excel file is attached (EDIT: i forgot, vBulletin doesn't allow XLS files, so I saved as tab delimited text). The first run on the QX9650 had one extra entry in the log file due to a delay in hitting the F11 key, that was removed. All other log entries are as they were collected.

Fraps output to ascertain reproducibility.
http://forum.xcpus.com/gallery/d/701...15SEC_FRAP.JPG

Here is the statistical summary:

Phenom 9850@2.5G 1024x768 Ultra Ave FPS = 64.75
Phenom 9850@2.5G 1680x1050 Ultra Ave FPS = 47.61
QX9650 @ 2.5G 1024x768 Ultra Ave FPS = 75.96 (NOTE, the very last entry is 108 FPS, if this is removed the average is 74.78)
QX9650 @ 2.5G 1680x1050 Ultra Ave FPS = 48.64
QX9650 @ 2.5G and 800 MHz FSB 1680x1050 = 47.54

This actually turned out to be another great example of GPU vs CPU limited domains. At 1024x768, QX9650 is 17% faster clock for clock (or 15% faster throwing out the last FPS entry in the QX9650 -- let's count it as an anomaly). At 1680x1050, both CPUs perform identically -- GPU limitation naturally.

Changing the FSB from 1333 Mhz (333 Mhz system clock, stock for the QX9650) to 800 Mhz (200 Mhz system clock) had no effect on the observed FPS -- as expected.

Tab delimited raw data is attached.

EDIT: Just for fun, I repeated the 1024x768 and 1680x1050 but at 3.0 GHz on the QX9650, and at 3.0 GHz on the Phenom, the results below (did not plot):

QX9650 @ 3.0G 1024x768 Ultra = 75.70 FPS
QX9650 @ 3.0G 1680x1050 Ultra = 49.68 FPS
Phenom 9860 @ 3.0 G 1024x768 Ultra = 71.94
Phenom 9860 @ 3.0 G 1680x1050 Ultra = 47.44

So at 2.5 GHz, an intel quad is enough to satiate a 8800 GTX at low resolution, ultra settings. At 3.0 Ghz, the Phenom can satiate the 8800 GTX at lower resolutions ultra settings.



Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

...

:) What's gonna' happen is a lot of useful and good data both generated and linked will show up

...

---

Which is one of the positive things to come out of the whole thing. Even proving misguided arguments wrong (or just showing they are actually misguided) provides some useful data. :)

It's just frustrating if one point is argued, and then side tracked when suitable data is put forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iJammin

Which is one of the positive things to come out of the whole thing. Even proving misguided arguments wrong (or just showing they are actually misguided) provides some useful data. :)

It's just frustrating if one point is argued, and then side tracked when suitable data is put forward.

---

Data ... it's like a warm blanket on a cold, blustery January day. You can wrap yourself with it and warms you ... I feel naked without it :)

Side tracking is simply a tactic when the data is not on your side....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viper666

".. an ounce of honest data is worth a pound of marketing hype." - Spec.Org< answers are there!

---

Spec is great aren't they:

INT Rates
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...703-04693.html
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...331-03975.html

FP Rates
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...703-04691.html
http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/results/...331-03970.html

Thanks for reminding me...

@Gosh ... so UP data will give you a rough idea of how the 2P and 4P server translates to DT.

jack

Finally, science... thankyou Jack... nice to see someone be able to show the comparisons requested :)

Jack: Do you have a newer videocard? was this test done with nVidia 8800GTX?

Can you test on higher and lower resolutions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

If I do this, will you accept the result even if it contradicts your link?

---

If you find something that contradicts what you are saying I don't think that you are going to inform about that(you have invested to much pride in that "FSB doesn't matter") . But I am interested in how Race Driver Grid performs. It performs well on ATI so if you have one new ATI card then please use that. If you are able to get 48xx in crossfire then this is VERY interesting.

When I have looked at tests it seems that the older nVidia 8800 serie (GTX and Ultra) have high latency externaly. But very fast internally. That may be the reason why there are cards with 768 MB ram

EDIT: If you are interested in comparing GPU here is a nice test comparing 8800GTX and ATI 4870
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=115791

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

If you find something that contradicts what you are saying I don't think that you are going to inform about that(you have invested to much pride in that "FSB doesn't matter") . But I am interested in how Race Driver Grid performs. It performs well on ATI so if you have one new ATI card then please use that. If you are able to get 48xx in crossfire then this is VERY interesting.

When I have looked at tests it seems that the older nVidia 8800 serie (GTX and Ultra) have high latency externaly. But very fast internally. That may be the reason why there are cards with 768 MB ram

EDIT: If you are interested in comparing GPU here is a nice test comparing 8800GTX and ATI 4870
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=115791

---

you dont get this in your thick skull, dont you?

It doesnt matter if you use a 8800gtx/4870 or even a 280gtx. The only thing that happens is, that you push the gpu limit into a higher resolution region.

Your now trying to shift the topic away from the cpu to the gfx...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

It doesnt matter if you use a 8800gtx/4870 or even a 280gtx. The only thing that happens is, that you push the gpu limit into a higher resolution region.

---

I need to match what I am seeing in the pattern from other tests. And this explanation matches very well to this test.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-sc...e-processors/9

If you want me to listen on your arguments then you need to say something that is different from the pattern that I have seen on other reviews. What I have seen about nVidia 8800GTX is the same as this review jack did. It does have the same pattern.
Also one wish, could you please stick to the technology and skip the personal attacks. Yes I have been trying to get some information and posting on some forums in order to get some information that contradicts what I am saying. I have also done a test program and have done some test on different types of operations, it is possible to get more than twice the speed in memory use with a low clocked AMD compared to one high clocked Intel if you use instructions that works well on AMD just using memory (no GPU).

Do you know what guys ? a couple of pages ago i was all for someone to put this guy down Humanely. But now i just wish someone would do it in any manner they like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

Jack: Do you have a newer videocard? was this test done with nVidia 8800GTX?

Can you test on higher and lower resolutions?

---

I can and will if you like... that will take sometime because it means switching monitors again. The max I can go is 1900x1200

If it makes you happier --- I will actually go buy a 4870X2 just to satisfy your curitiosity.

Next, I am not interesting comparing GPUs, I am interested in the computational questions surround your premise, why it is wrong, and grudgingly stepping you through the observations.

Thirdly, I would show you everything. Integrity in the data is paramount. Without it, there is no truth. The reason for the question as I put it is for the very reason you ask your question :) ... hence the reason the post is long and filled with such dirty detail, without that there is no chance of reproducibility. I provide all the exacting details that the test can be reproduced if needed. You can repeat the test yourself, if you have the inclination and resources (i.e. willing to spend the money to regenerate the configuration :) ).

Finally, in the hands of a clever experimentalist, there is much more data to be collected to ensure all the basic concepts are thrown out.... so the question I ask, using the two games we have used here, is there a way I can for the FSB to be the problem?

Once we finish here, then I will provide you with the explanation that will make all this make sense ... even most of the weird observations that started this whole thing. Your tone has turned more respective, you will find that I will become more congeal. If you can relax your mind and open it up to explore the subject, it can be both a learning experience -- and fun, which is why I am so passionate about my hobby.

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

I need to match what I am seeing in the pattern from other tests. And this explanation matches very well to this test.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-sc...e-processors/9

If you want me to listen on your arguments then you need to say something that is different from the pattern that I have seen on other reviews. What I have seen about nVidia 8800GTX is the same as this review jack did. It does have the same pattern.
Also one wish, could you please stick to the technology and skip the personal attacks. Yes I have been trying to get some information and posting on some forums in order to get some information that contradicts what I am saying. I have also done a test program and have done some test on different types of operations, it is possible to get more than twice the speed in memory use with a low clocked AMD compared to one high clocked Intel if you use instructions that works well on AMD just using memory (no GPU).

---

memory bandwidth means jack :banana::banana::banana::banana: on desktop, you could quadruple the memory bandwidth and you wont see different results on 90% of standard desktop apps.

Memory bandwidth is a important factor in HPC/server (4p) environment, but not on desktop. And thats why we see nehalem goes with IMC to cover server (4p) HPC space where amd is still top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

I can and will if you like... that will take sometime because it means switching monitors again. The max I can go is 1900x1200

If it makes you happier --- I will actually go buy a 4870X2 just to satisfy your curitiosity.

---

I will soon have one my self and will test that on 2560x1600. Also going to get a 790GX card and will compare that with 790FX

What is your explanation of this test?
LIST - Processors Bottom to Top

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

memory bandwidth means jack :banana::banana::banana::banana: on desktop, you could quadruple the memory bandwidth and you wont see different results on 90% of standard desktop apps.

---

Thats like saying cache doesn't matter. Do you know why cache is so important?
VERY high bandwidth and low latency.
If you are going to multitask (use more than one application etc) then memory is important. But if you time one single but complex operation on desktops those normally depend on processor speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kitfit1

Do you know what guys ? a couple of pages ago i was all for someone to put this guy down Humanely. But now i just wish someone would do it in any manner they like.

---

Do you have problems talking about technology? Or is it this a problem about feelings? You don’t need to read the thread if you have problems with it.
If someone can prove me wrong then you will feel very good, if you could explain with real facts that are understandable then you had done it a long time ago.
This is rather funny, why is it problematic to talk about technology if it is something that is criticism to Intel design? Why?

Entertaining! :D
Partially made my day.

Jack... I admire your passion and courage to get yourself into this and do all these tests for... "jack".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

Do you have problems talking about technology? Or is it this a problem about feelings? You don’t need to read the thread if you have problems with it.

---

http://inox.org/demot/TROLLING.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gosh

What is your explanation of this test?

---

http://mikeytherhino.files.wordpress.../stupidity.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

All clocks were the same, 2.5 GHz (default stock for the Phenom 9850).

---

If you investigate how these processors work you will find that AMD is gaining speed with faster I/O and bandwidth communication.
Intel QX9650 = 12 MB L2 cache at 15 clocks
AMD 9850 = 2 MB L3 cache at 43(?) clocks running at 2 GHz (?) and 512 KB L2 cache for each core.

If these processors worked similar then Intel should win these tests and it should win by some margin. The HUGE L2 cache that is so much faster will do a lot on the work that is done by the processor (games normally loves cache). The L2 cache is about three+ times faster compared to L3 cache and also very big. AMD will need to go to memory more often than Intel so there is also one performance hit. Fast memory will do more to AMD because of this.
Now if these results are that similar on 1680x1050 and the FSB isn’t a problem, then the only solution would be that the GPU is very slow. So slow that it isn’t possible to notice the difference between these processors because Intel should win.
The performance hit by lowering the FSB to 200 MHz seems ok, I have tested this to and what I have noticed is that lowering the FSB doesn’t seem to change bandwidth as much as it changes latency.
I am pretty sure that you will find more and more speed improvements when you are using fast video cards on high res with AMD when the resolution goes up and you have high settings. Doubling the I/O load on the FSB will do some damage to the total speed. AMD will not notice this on memory because it handles the I/O with hypertransport.
Besides that you have the problem if threads are shifting cores on Intel.

About this list
LIST - Processors Bottom to Top

They are running Grid at 640x480 and AMD seems to perform better on that very low resolution. The reason for this might be that on that VERY low resolution the cache (L2) for AMD is enough. Maybe you don’t need that very LARGE L2 cache then and that makes AMD even to Intel. AMD synchronize threads faster and that might be the reason why you get a bit better performance.
When you increase the resolution the game is needing more memory and AMD is going to the memory sooner than intel, it is first going to the L3 cache but there is one performance hit for more than 3 times slower. Going to memory the performance hit is even larger. If they had tested on 800x600 intel would probably win, it would win on 1024x768, as the resolution goes up AMD will gain performance again and at some point it will pass Intel.


gOJDO Do you have any other explanation?

Ahh, gosh, is it possible for you to do a CPU-only intensive test or something?

Like encoding two movies. But, use the same HDD in both systems, and then installing Vista/XP from the same disk. And make sure the same updates are installed on both.

Thanks, I may choose AMD over Intel if this test (if you do it that is) proves AMD have an edge.

Im only 13 :rofl: Need to go cheapy but powerful:D

@gosh

The Phenom used for the grid scores dont represents a standard Phenom. I remember it was clocked with 3.2 GHz and a insane (at least at this time) NB frequency of 2.7 GHz, DDR2 1100 4-4-4-5.

If you raise NB frequency you lower latencies, maybe thats why Phenom is ahead there.

@Jack

Can you run some test to confirm or disprove the numbers given for WiC, Crysis and Company of Heroes in http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_q9300/

Same settings would bei nice ;)