Read my previous post on that subject.AMD's design is fine(nothing is perfect,remember that) and superPI is not used for anything meaningful anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
Printable View
Read my previous post on that subject.AMD's design is fine(nothing is perfect,remember that) and superPI is not used for anything meaningful anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
But if AMD is lacking in scores because it's cache sucks or is lacking it doesn't make software biased. Thats like claiming a game that is designed a specific way shouldn't be valid either. The game will be played on either system correct? Well since the game may prefer more cache then you can't blame the software either.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
If Deneb has 8mb of cache I doubt this will be a problem do you? So because Phenom lacks a design feature we can't use it to benchmark?? I'm going to find this extemely ironic if Deneb shows really good results in super pi then all of you are like oh well it's a good program to benchmark.
The more you post the more clueless you sound.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
Games do not fit inside the cache nore do most useful everyday applications, so superpi is of no use.
I guess you heard the age old saying its not the size but how you use it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
Its been said many times in this thread already (and countless others), that the reasons why super pi is better on an intel chip. And why its a useful benchmark when used correctly.
@ roofsniper
I think more of the point is that anyone who understands how a "multicore" CPU works with each manufacturer, will also understand the difference on how single threaded and multi threaded software performance are influeced by the differences in architecture .
I really am looking forward deneb retail.Its good to see AMD are refining their current lineup. Reminiscent of the T-Bred A+B (Phenom65nm) > Barton (phenom45nm). > A64 (??32nm ) dont you think ?
Exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
I've been trying to explain this to him (and to some others) to no avail.
I am yet to see or hear from someone who actually uses application based on Cinebench engine or Povray or "Fritz engine" ; yet to see one good use of SuperPI(which BTW SUCKS in efficiency when it comes to actual pi calculations since there are a bunch of programs that kill SuperPi when it comes to its own purpose .If anyone knows or have some info it's appreciated.
@Glow9
Instead of skipping on some posts in this thread you should read up and stop posting ehm obviously simple questions or make unsubstantiated claims.FYI ,K10 has smaller transistor budget for core die area and less on-die cache than C2Q and yet manages to perform close to or above C2Q level.That's called good engineering if you're looking for appropriate term.
This is what peeps seem to not understand between the 2 chip designs. I think Phenom 65n is holding it's own based on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
1.6V for 4Ghz ...w00t?
like when they says 15% slower...... they for get to mention it's got 50%-75% less cache.Quote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
Fist it's not known if CPUz is even reading it correctly,for example take a look at fist CPUz shots from official event where AMD showed the world the C0 stepping back in the day(Cebit 2008):Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Trooper
http://pics.computerbase.de/2/0/7/3/8/4.jpg
http://www.roclockers.net/forum/inde...ach=8425;image
Note the vcore that CPUz reads... 1.65V for 2.3Ghz,yeah right :p: .We have seen this exact stepping of the chip in hardspell preview in August,the vcore was 1.25V.So i say CPUz is "spreading FUD" :D
It is not just the cache size but also the type. Deneb will have larger L3 cache but it is intel's large L2 cache that is the big benefit. It would be likely with smaller L2 caches I7 may not preform as well as penryn chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
Thanks for clearing that up to those of you not being a jerk, I still think that other chips with larger caches there is a clear benefit. If there wasn't I doubt AMD would have chose to increase Denebs as much as they did. See I agree with Yukon here and looking to the pictures of the heatsink and fan that thing must be running hoooooooooootQuote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Trooper
You agree with what?All he said is "1.6V for 4Ghz ...w00t? " .Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
You are not making any sense,apart from making yourself look uneducated with those clueless cache/design comments you made.Now you make another clueless comment without even seeing in what contest the latest 4Ghz shot was made(a preview of maximum clock is not going to be done with stock cooling,would it? great find Columbus :clap: )
Deneb is running much cooler and draws much less power than 65nm Agena.We know this as a fact from August(the earliest C0 stepping,C2 will be better):
http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont...58&pageid=3150
Idle:
http://img.inpai.com.cn/2008/8/6/24d...c80f883a83.gif
Deneb draws 21% less power than same clock/same volts Agena!
So idle testing shows you are wring,yet again!Sigh...
Load:
http://img.inpai.com.cn/2008/8/6/2b7...287f1301dc.gif
104/57=1.81 ,so Deneb draws 81% less power than same clock/same volts Agena! That's almost 2x less!!!
Now your claim about Deneb running hot is not only busted,it's shattered...Sigh 2nd time.. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
http://www.techpowerup.com/img/08-10-11/34a.jpg (techpower)
we see Deneb 4.0ghz at 1.6V's air ? O_o
Deneb is looking better all the time now lol
Glow9 no matter how hard i tried to show you some facts and correct your ignorant views on this topic,you continue to act as a troll.I haven't insulted you with one word while at the same time i posted useful information just to help you stop looking stupid in this thread,but you totally ignored my posts and continued your clueless ramblings.From totally clueless comments on CPU design,to intel troll comment about Deneb running hot after which i responded with hard proof which you dismissed as fanboy post?!This makes you a troll in AMD section who's intention is not to participate and learn here but to poo poo on AMD whenever you see a slightest chance for it.
*Ignore list*
ok fine i admit that amd cpus are poorly designed and intel's cpus are way better designed, for this program. so you happy? that intel can score better scores on a program that is completely meaningless? has nothing to do with real life situations, and the program is only a test. a test that was good in the past but is pointless to use ever since the first dual core cpu came out. and if deneb comes out and gets really high scores on cpuz i will be saying wow thats one hell of a cpu doing so good at a huge disadvantage. i doubt anyone is gonna suddenly say its a good program. that doesn't even make any sense. wouldn't you rather want to win at a disadvantage than to win and say it was even? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
I'd like to see AMD win the disadvantaged test and the equal one haha. But even if AMD runs a disadvantaged benchmark we can still compare it to a phenom score in the same program. This is up to whoever has one but the people running Denebs right now I haven't seen that many benchmarks yet. 1.6 is still kinda high for new chips to run 4Ghz would like to see a little lower.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
I think you're all crazy. :p:
In honor of our bickering over benchmarks, I wrote one called "Generic CPU Benchmark" just for us. Let it be another contender in the "ZOMG is it fair?!" debate. :)
This requires the .NET 2.0 Framework.
For reference, I get about 16750-17000 KCU/s on my 9850 @ 2.5GHz (stock).
I agree the lack of new AMD chips has really done a number on um "certain people". Now they're all defensive I'm pretty sure if AMD released a 4Ghz chip that ran at 3v and was 120C they'd still be saying how awesome it is and it's as good as what Intel is offering. Yeash... I hope AMDs new DDR3 Denebs kick butt to bring a few more sane members over to this end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Trooper
phenom 9600 stock clocks.
ZOMG Particle i hate you, thanks to the program my pc now has AIDS.
and my score is 11,835 KCU/s on an X2 @ 200 x 14 = 2800mhz
what exactly does that little nifty program test?
im guessing you can only compare scores to cpus with the same number of threads?Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
The program tests a battery of commonly used math operations on a large dataset. It should be a good mix of CPU and RAM stress.
Yes, numbers will increase dramatically with extra cores. It is multithreaded.
ran it a second time and got 21,519. pretty nice as it locks down my comp when its running. doesn't run very long tho.
It's fairly consistent between a dataset of 16MB or 512MB. I can make it longer if you want though.