might work as a stress tester if it can go into a loop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
Printable View
might work as a stress tester if it can go into a loop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
Screen shot of all cores at 100% woooo? Or how does this proggie work?Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
Glow, did you for the ease just ignore below quoted picture?
We cant be sure how AMD's 45nm process reacts to 1.6Vcore, although Intel's 45nm process from Core 2 line is not happy with 1.6Vcore, yet we see here a 200Mhz higher OC than Deneb using 'only' 0.12Vcore more. So what was your point exactly again:clap: Especially if you think about Bloomfield is already at high/k and metal gates:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
He ignored every counter argument(with proofs) against his clueless claims...No wonder why he ignored that one.So i ignore him now.
As for that Core i7 picture,with 1.7V that chip is gonna "celebrate" New Year outside the motherboard socket,i can tell you that much.
It's hard to say still what we'll see on voltages. That i7 is an ES just like the Denebs that we're familiar with.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/...eneb-0ghz-time
Oh, BTW, the tester seems to be a contract board tester, and he has to add CPU codes into the BIOS to do the test. So don't bother check voltage. It's his job to figure out the calibration curve.
theres not much of a point in showing nehalem running on 1.72V. intel themselves have already stated anything above 1.6 will damage the chip and even running it at 1.6V for everyday use is probably still gonna hurt the chip. i bet if you hit the volts down to 1.6 you won't even be seeing nehalem above 4ghz.
my phenom 9950be atr 3ghz has only 21551KCU/s??:(
something must be wrong. is this bandwidth sensitive?
what ram are you using? the test appears to be just more than cpu related as i believe particle had a lower score than me on a better cpu.Quote:
Originally Posted by LightSpeed
Hi i got 22379 running 3.107 ghz doing some ACC testing
Yes, because of the large dataset, the program is a mix of not just CPU performance but also RAM performance. It's a more realistic scenario imo since in the real world you're pulling and manipulating data from somewhere--not just playing in the CPU's cache.
what speed ram you guys got? cause i didn't think my corsair dominator 1066 at 5-5-5-24-30 was that great. i don't even think those are stock clocks i believe its underclocked. anyway particle create a new thread for this. might be cool to see what scores people can get since most cpu testing programs out there are affected mostly by cpu clock.
hell it would be nice to see the change in scores on this simple bench going from 2mb L3 to 6mb on the phenom.
the same way "certain" peole were when Intel was reaching the 4ghz mark and was doing it with space heaters, and even at that speed they could not beat a 2.6ghz AMD?"....AMD's Phenom is a good chip and priced right. If Intel didn't have what they have now, I'd be more suprised, since they have like every resource and funding at thier finger tips. AMD has the know how..just not the resourses..Now if AMD was charging 1200 for the fastest Phenom.. I would not own one. So "who-ray" for Intels 12mb cache 1500 dollar 3.2ghz chip that PWNs all......Intel still charged 1000 for there newest chip back before C2D and it couldn't compete with AMD...And those voltages could be wrong.. I have my own screeny of my 9850 OC on my 790gx board..it read 1.776v and it was not correct. I updated CPU-Z and it has read correctly ever since. and, if this board runs more than 1.52 it gets scarey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
http://3800z24.info/Phenom/3.3ghz.jpg
you should try change the last two timing to 15 and 42.Quote:
Originally Posted by roofsniper
or 15 and 26 if you sticks can run them.
I made a thread for this in the benchmarking software forum.
in bios i believe i set it to 15 and 22 which i believe is the epp spd for these sticks. bios overides that tho and gave me 24-30.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
also i found this awhile back for my mobo: TRAS - bios 1002 and up overrides this setting: If tRTP is set to Auto then -2 from what the setting is. Any other tRTP setting and this is 18 no matter what the setting is.
TRC - BIOS 1002 overrides this setting if tRTP is not on Auto. If tRTP is not on Auto this is 26.
i haven't really tried messing with them much i just wanted stock for now mostly because a phenom 9600 is probably amd's worst quad core to overclock besides the 9500. deneb is a different story tho.
I just ran that Bench and got 30,844 @ 3.3ghz /2400mhz NB.
http://3800z24.info/Phenom/9950/32bit/Generic_bench.png
I dunno about you but I'm pretty certain I spoke about a Q9550 not a i7 so whats the point of this? If deneb is only around 13-15% faster per clock than current chips that makes it on par to C2D I dont even thing comparing it to an i7 is doing anything is worth while. I doubt we'll see anything insane until AM3Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
Hehe...... :bounce:
Just had to break 31,000 KCU's
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c3...1-225722-B.png
I posted in the Bench Thread Particle started too.
It has a full SS with other specs on the run if your interested...
hmmm i just got to thinking seeing that cpuz shot of the bloomfield, that Intels new Core i7s will flop, kinda like the willamette core did. Intel is foraying into the integrated memory controller area now and their quick path data connect, all on an architecture that is heavily dependent on large amounts of L2 cache to perform well. We all know that L3 cache is much slower than L2 and it is a shared cache. L3 helps alot with multi threaded apps that use multiple cores, but with intel dropping their L2 cache on their cores down to 256k, i see that as a big performance hit on regular single threaded apps which is what most programs are. It is a smart time for intel to test the IMC, cause they are ahead, but i think they underestimated AMD again. I think by the time all is said and done, the new 45nm Phenoms will be better than the 45nm Core i7, and on par with the current yorkfield chips.
I see the bigger L3 for the Phenom to be nice to definitely help with multi-threaded apps as well as keep more data in the cache vs having to go to RAM. I still dont see why intel went with such a large L3 and such small L2's. I coudl be wrong, but the dothan core did well with larger L2's, the core architecture was based off of the dothan and loves the uber large L2's. Drop the cache down and it is plain to see that their chips loose quite a bit of performance. I dont see the quickpath doing anything for intel's current arch, maybe when intel does a new arch with the IMC in mind this time they will make a much better performing chip. You still have to remember that intel's quads are still nothing more than 2 dual cores put on the same die, where as Phenom is a naitive quad. We shall see soon if AMD's native quad design pays off, and i have a hunch it will.
Well, considering that some Intel fangirls actually think the 52% gaming increase is true, I don't think the Bloomfield chip itself is at fault.
As with GT200, it's going to be an average upgrade experience.
Nothing even close to revolutionary for average use (for video encoding, graphics cards are the future. Powerdirector with GPGPU encoding is coming soon.).
I mean, K8 vs P4. P4 was better in multimedia benchmarks, but who really gives a ****? Most of us just put our encoding in a queue and do it at night. Even if we do it real-time we'd still do other stuff. It's tangible.
Less tangible stuff? Let's see.... gaming. K10.5 doesn't have the per clock advantage anymore, but it should give a better gaming experience compared to a same-priced Bloomfield.
^
The exact thing K8 did. (Oh, though that was at lower clocks)
daseto: I think you may very well be right, I don't pay a whole lot of attention to what Intel is doing, seeing as how I'm an unapologetic AMD fan... ;)
From what I've read though it seems like Nehalem was designed to compete more in the server market, and the improvements may not translate to the desktop/gamer segment...
Only time will tell, adding an IMC has proven to be a huge benefit to performance but it's a pretty big step and AMD definetly has the jump in that department.
I have pretty high hopes for Deneb, but I really don't expect early releases to hit 4Ghz right off the bat... Early Agena cores were not that impressive,
but now they can actually hold their own against C2Q. They may not win hands down but the price/performance makes them a serious contender....
BTW: I've watched all this sillyness concerning SuperPi.... A dude on TechReport (2-3yrs ago) SMOKED my X2/4800 using a P4. It was the only benchmark he could win.
I won't say it's totally irrelevant but, it's pretty much irrelevant when comparing different uArchs... :p:
Since I cant findit, I'll post my experience here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle
X3@3.0 GHz (2.0 GHz NB) DDR2-1000 Ganged [Vista Ultimate x64]
http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/1...0081012gi3.png
Another run with the same settings:
http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/2...0081012lg5.png
this looks to me like a significant marine? And score does looks like to low??!
:shrug:
Now take look this score with these setup:
X3@3.3 GHz (1.8 GHz NB) DDR2-1066 Ganged [Vista Ultimate x32]
http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/8...0081012yp6.png
:confused:
to what to relate this big difference?