Probably wasn't worth the effort at the time as they weren't bandwidth limited with even dual core chips, with quad core chips it makes a lot more sense though.Quote:
Originally Posted by doompc
Printable View
Probably wasn't worth the effort at the time as they weren't bandwidth limited with even dual core chips, with quad core chips it makes a lot more sense though.Quote:
Originally Posted by doompc
Hmmmm. Looks like the actual number of TLB entires is hidden from the OS kernel.
There are some crazy New Zealanders who have some measuring software...
well uOpt do what you have to in order to find out.
We must know the secret
Here it is, from Intel's system programmer's manual (updated Oct 30 to include Core2):
Quote:
- Intel Core 2 Duo processors: DTLB0, 16 entries, DTLB1, 256 entries, 4 ways.
- Pentium 4 and Intel Xeon processors: 64 entries, fully set associative; shared
with large page data TLBs.
- Intel Core Duo, Intel Core Solo processors, Pentium M processor: 128 entries,
4-way set associative.
- Pentium and P6 family processors: 64 entries, 4-way set associative; fully set.
associative for Pentium processors with MMX technology.
Doesn't look like the new quad core processors will be very good energy-wise. Already up 200 mhz, and its 200W. However, performance probably will kick ass ... at stock anyway
Because K8 has 64bit cache L2 :) .Quote:
Originally Posted by doompc
No, K8s Cache L2 width is 128 Bits. It was 64 Bits on K7s.
It's 64bit wide, but dual ported, basically you can't read more than 64bit or write more than 64bit to L2 cache at 1 clock:stick:Quote:
Originally Posted by zir_blazer
from X-bit Labs article
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...amd-k8l_6.htmlQuote:
The L2 cache (paired with the L1 cache) is exclusive: the data in the L1 and L2 caches are not duplicated. The L1 and L2 caches exchange data across two unidirectional buses (one goes from the L1 to the L2 and one goes from the L2 to the L1), each 64 bits or 8 bytes wide (Figure 6). With this organization, the processor receives data from the L2 cache at a rather slow rate of 8 bytes per clock (8 clocks to transfer a 64-byte line). As a result, the data transfer latency is high, especially when two or more lines in the L2 cache are being accessed simultaneously. The latency is somewhat compensated by the increased number of cache hits due the high associativity of the L2 cache, which is 16, and due to the larger total amount of cache memory (thanks to the exclusive design).
Fred this is true . What you posted. Except right now It really doesn't matter. As C2D cann't for the most part do any more than 3 vector ops per cycle most of the time. Hower if you read the White paper I linked to not long ago You will see that Intels SSE4 instructions that will come out with Wolf/York . 30 new instructions are almost all used to increase vector performance.
[ Vector processing on Nehalem ] is the Thread you can find the White paper on. In the news section. This is when you will see the intel cpu's shine. Because intel waited for Wolf/York these SSE4 instructions will be benefical right away as the programmers already have the instructions.
Quote Fred Pohl
This table explains a lot of things right away. And the most important thing is that the processors with Core microarchitecture have “wider” architecture that allows processing more instructions per clock cycle than CPUs with K8 microarchitecture. Although the execution units of both competing processor architectures can process up to three x86 and x87 instructions per clock cycle, Core Microarchitecture should prove more efficient with SSE instructions. While K8 processors can perform only one 128bit command per clock, Core can process up to three commands like that.
Moreover, Core Microarchitecture boasts another great advantage: more advanced decoding system. Together with the four decoders, macrofusion technology allows decoding up to five instructions per clock (in an ideal case). The competitor processors can only decode three instructions simultaneously. All this indicates that the decoders of Core Microarchitecture based CPUs will be able to better load the processor execution units by performing up to four instructions per clock in the most optimal conditions. In this case the overall commands execution will go 33% faster than by K8 AMD processors.
AMD will lead (C) (by AMD) -)
http://www.overclockers.ru/images/ne.../15/k8l_01.gif
AMD confirms 40 percent K8L superiority
what we see?
if(1.4*K8 == K8L && 1.2*K8 == C2D) K8L = 1.4/1.2*C2D = 1.16*C2D;
maybe 1.16 in a single core battle. In multithreaded environment it may be much faster (and disipate less energy).
cant wait.
New roadmap from AnalysDay is showing first Deerhounds around April 2007
http://techreport.com/etc/2006q4/amdfad02.jpg
Note the * at the 40%. Now tell me whats behind that *.Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
i see only mid-2007
and not Deerhound, but Barcelona-Opteron and Agena-FX
* is multiplication operation if u didn't know
Precisely, its nothing more than a marketing number that never seen the light if day yet.
Tho MAS obviously is dreaming of something else while trying to be funny.
something else rather ))
Yeah,I guess AMD will wait 1 year after intel's Core2 arch. just to introduce underperforming new arch :rolleyes: . /*Fat chance,Pops! */Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
AMD is not crazy to spill the beans on perf. too early.They will "shock" us as they did in the past.AM2 and socket F launch was just a preparation&migration to a higher bandwith platform needed for New Core arrival next spring.
And btw,they sell their whole production atm,furthermore ,they can't keep up with the demand.All this while not fully converted to 65nm...Kinda amazing IMO.
And ,don't forget that AMD already crossed the bridges known as :point-to-point interconnects and IMC.The ones intel is strugling for years to cross while being multiple times larger company:rolleyes:
Interesting out look you have. But lets be fair about What intel is tring to accomplish with CSI . It will be radical design compared to Ht . Which by the way in its first implamentation came from Dec.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Since I haven't seen the white papers on CSI so I won't speculate on it. But the rumors are looking good.
On k8l I think its best we wait to see how it performs befor we put intel in its grave.
. We all seen what 4x4 did as compared to the hype.
We have gotten a glimpse of AMD on 65nm as compared to the hype.
So lets just wait for the results When K8L comes out. Unless you seen something in the resent K8L demo running Task Manager that you liked.
It is not clear from the sheet whether they mean a 40% speed increase per core or whether they mean that moving a "typical" application from dual-core to quad-core given an overall speedup of 40%.Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
Since this is very marketing speechish I would think it is the latter.
However, 40% speedup per core at the same clockspeed is not impossible I'd say. Core2 is already 20-30% faster, and they would have a year more to fiddle. And they could count in better SSE units.
As I said hype is hype reality is something differant all together.Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
new steppings can help brisbane reach 3,4 and even 3,5GHz, sooner or later
besides 3,1GHz OC is only single result
will wait for statistics
Oh Brent!! No one yet tried Brisbane on Phase :) We don't know absolute limits of this shrink.Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
Besides I'm comfortable with 3.1GHz on air, my previous X2 3800+ S939 did only 2,5GHz @1.65V and 2,74GHz@1.45V(latter one) stable.
We have gone over this Twice.Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
Conroe has 2 more stages on a similar process.
it is only logical that conroe on average will clock better. However that also means that conroe will poorly perform in overclocks when 45nm comes around. Probably averaging 3.5-3.7Ghz
Thats true. But we do know how it performs in a very very cold room. I thought the test that got 3.1 ghz . The temps were reading wrong. But Anand test should no such problem . So I believe they were the correctly reported temps now. The room was very cold . Window open . heat register off.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
Not really nn as the good conroe chips hit 4ghz . No reason not to believe with a good shrink and High K gates 4+ ghz should be easy. But well have to wait and see won't we . For now its just hoping.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
thats cute, but conroe already ocs to 3.5-3.7, i see you have read the anandtech rd600 review, but i guess you conveniently missed the part about the 3.9ghz 6600 on air... granted thats above average, but youre a little confused if you think 45nm wont increase the clock speed beyond 3.7, when its already possible with current chips...Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Similar not --- Intel's is quite superior, Idsat is 10-15% higher, hence Td (gate delay) is lower, thus faster clocking chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cf...3005001504&p=7
Also account for the fact that the buried oxide is not only a poor electrical conductor (good for short channel effects, SCE) but is also a poor thermal conductor, then add in that SOI transistors have a self-heating propensity and it all adds up to AMD processors being poor overclockers relative to Intel CPUs in general.
Also, K8 has 12 stage Integer/ALU, and 17 stage FPU (as I recall, someone may want to correct me) ... the average mix of instrutions fetched/decoded and dispatched will depend upon the application at hand, but on average you can basically consider the stage length to be slightly more than 12. It is not unreasonable though abit of an approximation to claim that C2D and K8 are approximately the same, C2D being slightly longer.
A quad core at 3.7 ghz on air? :slobber:Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
yea, 3.7 on air but still is there any good performance increase......i don't see any significant, like Conroe but maybe this is like a test and just to see how it works and if its successful then they will take it and run and improve it some more for K8L
umm NO because 12 != 14 (does not) and 17 != 22Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Intel has 2 More Integer stages and 5 More FP stages
and the So called superior Process that you are talking about...
umm you liked to the process that made the world's HOTTEST Processor (Prescott) which I would not call a Superior process, rather a mistake that intel didn't fix till 65nm.
And PLEASE notice the Term "AVERAGE" in the above statement. Conroe is NOT Jesus reborn, rather a Good Processor design on an EXPENSIVE but very effective Process.
AMD lacking the funds to go to such extremes, follows a simple logical rational path.
I want Competition, not one being superior. Cus Who EVER wins, we lose :fact:
told, the changes shrink the Pentium 4's die size to 122 mm 2 , from 145 mm 2 for Northwood—this despite the fact Prescott's transistor count is 125 million, over twice Northwood's 55 million transistors
With 2MB cache on each core, the transistor count of Presler has gone up a bit. While Smithfield weighed in at a whopping 230M transistors, Presler is now up to 376M. The move to 65nm has actually made the chip smaller at 162 mm2, down from 206 mm2. With a smaller die size, Presler is actually cheaper for Intel to make than Smithfield, despite having twice the cache. Equally impressive is that Cedar Mill, the single core version, measures in at a meager 81 mm2.
AMD Athlon 64 X2: CPU: 154 m Intel Core 2 Duo: CPU: 291 m
So which process do you think is better?
there was nothing wrong with intel's 90nm process, it worked perfectly fine on dothan. i pefectly understand that competition is crucial, but amd doesnt seem to be doing much outside of the markets that bring in the most profit, and its showing in its dekstop peformance, no matter how much you try to sugarcoat it. do you thnk that we forgot the endless fud you used to spread, how you used to sound in the know and so knowledgeable amd how each and every one of your predictions turns out to be horse manure. you have done great work with the xtremesystems os, and im sure everybody appreciates it, but stop posting pro-amd fud already...Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
You're right, but it is not entirely true that hard clocking limit is in number of stages (like other post are suggesting). The real limiting factor is signal propagation on long lines (buses). If your new fabbing process can speed up movement of electrons then you can reach higher clocks (if other factors are not limiting you). What I'm saying is that CPU with 9 stages can clock higher than CPU with 14 stages if former one is on better process (or latter is on plain). That is a reason to introduce DSL, SSDSL, SiGe, etc. So claiming that new fabbing revision with addition of SiGe won't change anything is simply wrong. What we don't know is how much this will improve clocking, certainly not 40% because this much is from bulk process. I personally am expecting 15%-20% improvement over actual mix AMD is using.Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
:toast: for everyone!
A good view on the diminishing returns issue might be the P4 90nm to 65nm. There is just too many changes that you cant just fix. And the P4 even had a major update in the prescott. Its been the same way all time in history. After a few process shrinks it just stop in terms of clock returns due to design limitations.
Not true The Prescot would clock much higher but heat became an issue along with memory bandwidth. The heat issue in the long run could have been dealt with. But for P4 to effectively scale up badly needed an ondie memory controller. P4 was a bandwidth hog. an ondie memory control would have scaled the number of transitors down alot as cache could have been smaller. Were intel really screwed up was going to prescott from northwood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
I would have loved to seen northwood @ 45nm.with ondie memory controller. Who knows I may get my wish . Will see how many pipelines are in Nehalem. IF 18 I well call it a Northy.
Ahhh --- you have been pre-programmed by the machine I see....Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
However, to understand what I mean by superior process would take more time that I have. I linked the data, it is clear.
Intel's 90 nm had no problems, it was in design. Period. A crappy, inefficient architecture will be crappy no matter what process you put on it. To understand this concept, take a Pentium-M for example, shorter pipeline, same 90 nm process but when clocked to desktop speeds, actually goes neck and neck, and in may cases out performs an FX-60 (clocked to 2.8 GHz), using much less power:
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/2...nce/page21.php
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/2...nce/page19.php
clock for clock a 90 nm Intel cpu beating an fx-60 at lower power consumption who wudda thought.
It is unfortunate more sites did not push the Pentium-M to see what it would do, and it is perplexing why Intel stuck with Netburst so long when it was clearly inferior.
Now, on to your argument that 'it took 65 nm to fix', if you read the reviews for cedarmill/presler -- those were also hot running chips. It is inappropriate to draw the conclusion you are drawing comparing two class of CPUs and extrapolating back that it was a process problem when the end result of power and IPC and clock is a convoluted function of both process and archtecture.
The fact, it is a fact, remains that Intel produces cooler running transistors that switch faster, node for node when compared to AMD.
This is not a deficit that cannot be overcome, obviously, AMD did one heck of a fantastic job on K8, and will do so on K8L I expect, but they overcame their process deficiency with a good architectural design --- which relied more on Intel making a mistake more than domineering IPC in order to get a nice performance lead. Credit to AMD, but Intel has now changed their design philosophy and it will be much harder for AMD from here.
Same could have been said about Northwood. However You forget that Intel updated its 90nm ALOT. Prescott was on a process that did have leakage current and alot of it. Later Processes did reduce that greatly and those later processes were used by your Pentium-M. To say Intel just developed 90nm and then moved on to 65nm is ridiculous. Should Intel have Gone the Via route, their Design would have scaled to 10Ghz. However all that extra useless logic did nothing, Netburst in Theory was a Wonderful design and will probably be used again in the future. However I doubt we will see an OoO processor hit 10Ghz this Decade
Thats true nn When Intel first used Ssilicon on 90 it bad leakage problems . It wasn't until they got the right mix of Ge that the process improved. Couple that with 2x the transitor count. Things were bleak. Had Intel stayed with the Northwood . The heat wouldn't have been as big an issue @ 55 million transitors.
When was Dothan released compared to Prescott? Dothan improved 1 single speedgrade in its entire life. I guess that covers your 90nm improvement?Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Dothan, may 10th 2004.
Prescott, february 1st 2004.
Unlike others, Intel got the ability to release top speedgrades at introduction.
Dothan was designed to operate on laptops within a power envelope. Since it had no competition there was no need to push that envelope. But I thought there was more than one speed ramp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
I think there was a bit more than one speed bump LOL. I didn't take time to get list of them all but this says most of it. Shintai I was banned for a week for less offense than your post. See that little triangle on your left . I have used it once in my life. Unlike many that use it like a chess speed timer.
IntelŪ PentiumŪ M Processor with 2MB on-die cache
Speeds at 1.67Ghz-2.50Ghz (Dothan), 400 & 533Mhz FSB
It's the end of December. I see no K8L. :(
umm it isn't expected until 2H 2007Quote:
Originally Posted by LordofDoom
the es was ssupposed to be around starting in the end of 06. obviously, k8l isnt ready for that yet since their demo was task manager.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
:) :) Look, I am not here to start a fanboy flame war..... the opinions/facts vary on this all over the place.... you make a good observation here though, Intel refines it's process just as AMD refines theirs over the lifetime of the technology.... many do not believe this, always stating Intel does one big rev and AMD keeps tweaking.... this of course is not true, they always tweak up their process. However, Prescott sucked not because of leakage, it just sucked period :).... the leakage argument is a subjective analysis imposed by HW review sites who extrapolated this conclusion based on emprical observations on one architectural revision of the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Take for example the 65 nm Presler and Cedarmill, they were more or less dumb shrinks of Prescott --- but had exactly the same power problems at top bin --- is anyone saying the 65 nm process is leaky??? Nope, because there is Yonah and Conroe that manage power very effectively.
My point is --- you cannot take the emperical observation of a power meter stuck to a wall socket and the stability of a system at top clocks and directly extrapolate who has a better process easily --- in fact, it is a moot point. The process is 1/2 the equation, the other 1/2 is design/architecture. A good designer can take a substandard process and make a powerful CPU that simply SIPs power. In fact, AMD's sleep states and C&Q are quite advanced, and are certainly showing up in their idle power metrics.... does this make the 90 nm process superior, in some people's eyes yes.... but this is an architectural state not a transistor leakage state... there is a huge difference.
Again, I linked the data above which showed the industry accepted tansistor parametrics for transistor performance (Idsat, high/low Vt, etc) -- how those transistors are utilized to make a CPU is up to the designer and if it is a good design the processor will do well.... as I showed with a Pentium-M on a 90 nm process clocked at 2.8 GHz.
The data is out there to get to the fundamental of the process without the architectural portion of the equation, you just have to look for it....
You are incorrect though that Dothan/Banias/Prescott etc were processed at different times on different processes --- both mobile and desktop processed right along all the way until 65 nm came on line. Dothan was introduced with Prescott at the same time (actually about 2-3 months apart), fabbed at the same time -- Prescott released on or around Feb 2004, Dothan on or around May 2004. I doubt, if Intel made such great improvements in 90 nm leakage for Dothan that it would not have been shown to improve the same power metrics on Precott in 2005 :) ...
http://badhardware.blogspot.com/2006...70453330892136
Thats what I thought. HT3 will be independently on core speed!
am2 southbridges nowadays have 5x HT, future am2+ will have 13x
Not much time left for AMD to send out those December K8L ES chips...
I guess I'll just have to file this rumor together with the 50% higher clocking Brisbanes with 4MB of ZRAM L3 cache and 25% performance boosting RHTT. Speaking of which, I emailed Charlie D. of The Inq in response to his latest rant about hardware reviewers expecting too much from Brisbane to remind him of his rag's 2006 predictions of Brisbanes being officially announced in March, shipping in June, containing 4MB of cache, clocking 50% higher and all K8s getting a 25% performance boost from RHTT but he didn't seem to appreciate it. ;)
Is it just me or is Charlie a bit of an AMD fanboy? I cringed upon reading his 'Inqpression' on 4x4, he used absolutely NO benchmarks (I wonder why) and blabbered on for 2 pages about how Kentsfield is FSB limited, and that 4x4 would outrun Kentsfield in multithreaded games (with no benchmarks whatsoever to back up that claim).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
he does have a rather valid point, that Operating system does not support Numa and will effect 2P system performance by 15-25%Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
you are really starting to annoy meQuote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
if i read this post its clearly you dont understand anything about Zram and AMD
4x4 got kicked hard aswell in Vista, XP64 and 2003. So its not a valid point and didnt make the change hoped for in performance. and 15-25% for NUMA or not? LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Theinq is basicly useless in terms of tech info. Charlie and Fuad Fud is the worst people around and its all about tabloid news. They been wrong more than right, and you gotta love the best OC platform. Going from 680i to RD600. Tho the champ is P965. And Fuad with his 4GB will only work on Vista and told us Vista changed everything. Tho the problem at that time was chipset limitations and PCI resources being mapped under 4GB. No OS can fix that. And when asked for prof, his "technicians" had just reinstalled the box.Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
And all the product bias they have, its simply not worth reading. And we all now much sucky Kentsfield/Clovertown obviously is with the "limited" FSB :rolleyes:
Or with Charlie and his Kentsfield will OC like crap and its FSB OC potential sucks. Tho something like 1600FSB over the official 1066FSB in his eyes was poor.
4x4 is a platform not a CPU. The CPU isnt the single important thing in a system anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Dual Socket CPUs (4 cores now, 8 later), Quad Video, terrabites of data, cool look.
And then, for the CPU component, the only benches that matters for 4x4 are the multithreaded & high threading situations.
This is what it was designed for, to handle huge threading situations, and it does this better than Kentsfield, QX6700 etc, 5160, etc.
For example, the 3.2 FX74 beats the 3.0ghz 5160 in W2003 X64 (or Vista64) in rendering (one of the few areas of modern apps that
are efficiently multithreaded) and also, in general conditions, it scales much better as the number of threads increases.
it is very limitted but don't expect to find it's limits in game testings or SuperPI parties.Quote:
Kentsfield/Clovertown obviously is with the "limited" FSB
How many apps even multithreaded does it beat it at? And FX74 is 3.0. Maya, mental ray and 3DS Max Kentsfield is still faster. And I dont see many professionals rendering in cinebench...rendering is also one of the least memory bandwidth applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by alayashu
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2065498,00.asp
And NUMA+Vista+64bit
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel...o-core_10.html
maya, max, xsi /w mentalray || vray || any other modern renderers are exactly theQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
apps where 4x4 surpasses the QX6700 (ofc on X64 /w NUMA support).
Better than in Cinebench actually.
also, as a side note, their Max bench uses the Scanline renderer wich is very
poorly optimised for multiple cores (and actualy is very rarely used in 2006 CG
world, the same for LW Renderer, both of them are 90' outdated engines)
and aswell they did the test under XP32.
Undiscussable the Dual FXs are better in modern rendering than QX,
and the same in heavy threading situations. Ofcourse under X64 /w NUMA.
Benchmarks dont agree with you. :fact:Quote:
Originally Posted by alayashu
the benches you posted are relevant for the editor's professionalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
No one in modern times uses X32 anymore in rendering area
and max scanline or LW renderer or POV Ray are 90' engines that
very few use today (mainly cause of scene compatibility issues with
newer 3rd party renderers).
Do yourself a favor and browse for some mentalray/vray/renderman
tests under X64 w2003 if you don't believe me. Opterons / FXs are
slightly faster in every modern renderer than their Woodcrest/Kentsfield
counterparts. I say it as a lighting artist and not as fanboy as you
seem to consider every one that says FXs are better in certain areas.
Why dont you post some? Or perhaps you cant find any that gives the result you want? :rolleyes:
Because thats not the result we got at www.afilm.com but what do we know, we only make movies.
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6256&page=7
Dual Woodcrest 3.0ghz Vs. Dual Opteron 2.6ghz
The last two (Mental Ray Standalone and Pro/Engineer) are 64 bits.
Um, On vista X64 and X86. Compared to XP X23800 no OC and my conroe... both are fast on vista period!
umm, then probably you're involved in something totally different than rendering,Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
as what you want to prove is laughable in rendering arena :P
as for own tests, I wont be able to post in these 2 weeks, the studio is closed during holidays.
But anyway, PetNorth already proved what it is to prove.
Merry Christmas
Some rendering 64-bit benches under Vista:
http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/cpu...o-core_10.html
basically showed that AMD is pretty close in low Bandwidth renders and takes a soaring lead in high Bandwidth renders.
It depends on what you call "to be close". FX-74 has higher frequency (but still losing) and it is far-far-far away from Kentsfiel in terms of performance-per-watt.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
I do tend to annoy AMD fanboys with inconvenient facts but I honestly don't care. As for AMD using ZRAM cache in 2006, that certainly wasn't my idea. You'll have to ask The Inq about that ridiculous rumor. While you're at it, please ask them what happened to that miraculous RHTT technology that promised to allow a dual core AMD CPU to split single-threaded code into two threads and process it 25% faster with nothing more than a microcode update and OS patch. If you ask very nicely, they might also tell you how to convert lead into gold in your bathtub...Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
at the same time a Via C7-m at 1w and 2Ghz completely OWNS kentsfield in terms of Performance per watt. :fact:Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
So what is your point?
The two top ends are within a handful of points of each-other.
on a more ontopic note, why must EVERY SINGLE AMD thread talk about Intel?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
So what's new? It's a 90nm chip, you know. :stick: It would be strange if it was different.
Why are we talking about FX74 in a K8L thread?
There is no such CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
Wrong!Quote:
completely OWNS kentsfield in terms of Performance per watt. :fact:
I think you got the point.Quote:
So what is your point?
Why are people still trying to find some positive points in 4x4. Imho it is competely useless platform at least for the next 2 quarters.
1) yes there is, ask Via for a 65nm sampleQuote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
2) at less than 1/89 the power, it would only need 1/89 the performance to have the same performance/watt. Since performance in that benchmark doesn't scale perfectly, It would be impossible for Kentsfield to win.
3) Don't be so quick to judge. It is still a wonderful value for a good 2P system.
Topic: K8L
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
Yeah, and intel fanboys annoy me too.. :cool:
Let me take that back 98% of intel fanboys annoy me.
~Mike
This is getting off topic but then the topic is moot anyway since there will be no K8L ES chips this December. AMD fanboys occasionally annoy me but usually they just amuse me with their fanciful rumor-based wishes that never seem to come true. I can't think of a single AMD fanboy rumor-wish that came true this year. :fact:Quote:
Originally Posted by arisythila
We never seen a K8 65nm ES (Only one from some guy in japan about 8 months ago) yet the production chips are out in dells and hard to get. They kept them secret. We will never see a K8L until production but ES's of them have been made since it was taped out in the end of 2005 so ES's are out for chosen few that will not say a word to anybody. Prob been out for a few months.
there were very little 65nm k8 es for a reason, in that there was no reason for alot of es as it was just a die shrink. like i said in a thread before, there were plenty of am2 es around, as it required new mobo logic, as would k8ls since new am2+ mobos are going to be released, so if there were actual es samples out in any meaningful quantities we would have at least heard of them. also, k8l was taped out this year, i dont know where you heard 2005...
The 90nm is 20W TDP, even if the transisition is better than AMD's poor 90nm-65nm transition, it's not going to go lower than 10W.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
It's a terrible value since it has only 4 DIMM slots, reducing its usefulness for any significant 2S applications.Quote:
3) Don't be so quick to judge. It is still a wonderful value for a good 2P system.
I dont think there are K8L out since 2005 or i should at least heard about them or know someone that has one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serge84
Don't you mean 2006?? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by metro.cl
i did a quote he said 2005 :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
Considering that AMD just demoed the first working K8L silicon this month and all it could do was run task manager, I think it's pretty unlikely that AMD has been sending out ES chips for months.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serge84
Why is it that AMD fans seem to always expect soooo much more than AMD promises or delivers? Cut AMD some slack guys. It's hard enough for them to meet their own goals without their fanboys adding greatly exagerated performance expectations and cutting months off their timelines.
Just because you don't hear about them doesn't mean they aren't thereQuote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
true, kind of like how the average Conroe overclock isn't ever going to hit 5GhzQuote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
...or how the average K8 overclock is likely never to hit 3GHz. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
actually it is the average for Single cores, not quite the dual cores but then again you never specified that. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
right in case of 90nmQuote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
not right for 65nm
Yes because 65nm donīt even reach 3Ghz :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
i know 3100 (xtremesystems) and 3180MHz (Belgium) results with HT below 1000 (right) and several 2800-2900MHz results with HT above 1000 (suspicious) :)
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/3...90nm/page3.php
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=126558
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
It's just too bad a 3GHz 90nm K8 would probably match or even outperform these 3.1 - 3.2GHz 65nm K8s. Even your own X2 @ 2.7GHz would come pretty close. ;)
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...view/page5.asp
90nm 4600+ > 65nm 4800+. :slapass:
L2 latency increase = :nono:
I highly doubt that. I belong to another forum where the members aren't as 'Xtreme' as this place and the avg 1C K8 OC there is only ~2.7GHz. Only one member ever hit 3GHz with an Opty 148 and that was with the case side panel removed and the air-cooled PC sitting in an open window in mid-winter. He refused to run most BMs but he did manage a few and some CPU-Z screen shots. The highest benching water-cooled 1C K8 OC is a Opty 146 @2.8GHz but he runs it at 2.6GHz for daily use. The avg 2C K8 OC there is ~2.6GHz and the avg C2D OC is ~3.2GHz for a performance delta of ~2000+ on the AMD PR scale. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
From what I could tell, the FX-74 @ 3GHz was 11% faster than a 2.66GHz Kentsfield in Cinebench 9.5. While in 3Ds Max 9, the Kentsfield was 15% faster than the FX-74.Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
I find it strange therefore that you would use the word "soaring" while describing the Quad-FX's lead, while choosing not to use that word to describe the Kentsfield's lead (even though it was bigger). Based on the numbers in the benchmark, a Core 2 Quad @ 3.0GHz should get 1620 points in Cinebench, beating the FX-74 at the same clockspeed.
Not exactly soaring, and this is in a 64bit operating system using a benchmark where the K8 traditionally does well.
The Opteron 100 series o/c's are highly dependent on steppings, as in most cases. Many, many people here @ XS were able to get to 3ghz stable w/air in the early runs (i.e., CABNE and CABYE). I haven't been paying much attention to what people are getting with current steppings though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
Edit: I just checked the 207 page opty o/c thread. They're still not doing too bad. 3107mhz @ 1.4v on air
Just like what AMD said about 65nm, they did exactly what they said they would. Bring a cooler less energy cpu out. They never said it would perform any better. The slower ns in the cache is due to them thinking of releasing current chips with more cache if needed. Said by AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred_Pohl
I am clearly not a AMD or Intel fan anymore. I am going to get a mATX board as soon as I find one I like or just get a NF680 775 atx and see what my E6400 can really do. I don't expect anything from AMD or INTEL it comes out when it comes out. Don't get the wrong ideas about what I think of the situation because frankly you know nothing about how I think from a performance prespective.
I am all about performance now no matter the cost. Getting ready to build a extreme liquid cooling system for my comp and would love to use it on my C2D.
Oh really? Then I must have a rare chip or maybe its just my skill of getting 50% OC's from a limited chip like AM2's are. 939's got past 3ghz all the time back in the day before conroe but how many times has that been said. You where here you should know and so was I.Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
I reached 2.96ghz on a A64 3000+ 754 before I even had a AM2. And I also reached 2.5ghz on a 2500+ sempron but the memory controler on it was a dud so it was only a 75% OC.
Do we remember the world record data base? Also the new one. Thats a lot of rare chips ya know. Most people can't reach the cpus limit because they are afrade of frying it at a high voltage or it gets too hot. The people that can afford to push there chips are more likely with the right cooling to reach much higher then 3ghz but there are not that many people that can buy or build phase coolers. Thats a more reasonable anser.
Unless your comparing AM2 and leaving out the 939. We all knew that was the king of OCing before conroe but conroe is king now. That doesn't mean you can say this and that to something that wasn't true. 939's are better then AM2 before AM2 came amd made kick ass 939's now the AM2's are just crappy. I don't know what they did but the 939's where made superiorly compared with AM2 chips.
We can show plunty of AMD's that run past 3ghz up to 4.2ghz exactly. But that was way too long ago and forgoten in time because of C2D. C2D is the best but before that K8's where king for 3 years for a reason. No P-D could compare period even OCed to 7.2ghz. It could not touch a 3.8ghz FX-60 back in the day because that is the equivilint to a 8ghz to 10ghz P-D. Now AMD is just slower at the moment, no big deal to me.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...VudGh1c2lhc3Q=Quote:
Originally Posted by Theli
According to this it was only 1 to 3% faster. But all I will hear is. Man no it wasn't it was 20% of 50% faster. Really? Show me where. Realisticly C2D and C2Q is faster but not by such rediculessly high numbers. Its only 17% faster in 32-bit mode and about 10% faster in 64-bit. But still C2D has much of its advantages in OC is why C2D is much better then AMD when AMD can't get much more then a 50% OC C2D's do higher then 100% OC's on low end models.
ummm wow that is really ironic you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
Considering you posted in a few threads about a year ago on how people's K8's should Hit 3Ghz easy. :stick:
Get your story straight
I'm rounding here, so accept the tolerances of being human :slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=132953Quote:
Originally Posted by brentpresley
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=132951
:l Theres your 3ghz from me. You forget fast don't you? Short memory span. Alsimers getting to ya old timer?
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=108727
4ghz validated.
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=94127
4.17ghz validated.
http://www.hwbot.org/
http://www.ripping.org/database.php?act=records
Don't hold your breath too long it might kill ya when I already made my point. Besides that much mhz is nothing when its that much under 3ghz come on dude it was a 754. But now I just showed you a 3ghz validation for me. Your point means nothing since I proved otherwise. And with liquid cooling in oil with nitrogen pellets I beleave my chip will go higher. I stopped because that is very hot for air with the voltage thats required I need atleast water to reach 1.8v/1.9v at a decent temp.