im actually a little worried that 3870mhz x6 is a little low, think u can give us 4ghz on all cores with your setup? or is that the max cinebench run u got?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
Printable View
im actually a little worried that 3870mhz x6 is a little low, think u can give us 4ghz on all cores with your setup? or is that the max cinebench run u got?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
If you are referring to C10 test ,no,he ran it @ 3.7Ghz since all cores were used.IF on the other hand you meant Spi,then 3 active cores(all being used 33% each) were OCed to the Turboed clock and the SPi thread ran on them(effectively the same as having SPi bound to one core that worked @ Turboed clock).Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeus
manicdan i think most of the programs/games that work for quadcore will work for even more cores. and also i think we will be able to clock these as high as c3 quads so if there is something that is only coded to work w/ 4 cores no more, then they should still have same if not better clocks than deneb. if people that move from deneb to x6 use the same vcore on the new cpu, i dont think there will be many instances that the quad will beat the x6
theres a review shown in the news section showing the 1055T loosing to the x4 965 in a few games, due to using all 4 cores, but nothing beyond that. programs should have no problems scaling past 4 most of the time, but games i think were built for 2 or 4 or other set numbers, instead of being dynamic, but hopefully if they got to 4, it should be very easy for a patch to get to 6 or soQuote:
Originally Posted by crazydiamond
im still freaking annoyed at WoW using just 2 cores. 3.4ghz with game setting at minimum, should not result in 30fps, at max its like 25fps. so i have no clue how they could have such crappy programming.
HA! you would be suprised to what i have just found! :D
i ran 3dmark06 with an extended display to see how turbo was picking up
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/8260/thuban051.jpg
AND GUESS WHAT?
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/3668/thuban050.jpg
Turbo ran on FOUR cores!!! :shocked: :clap:
here's the result ;)
http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/3694/3d06003a.png
hmm interesting to say the least! did you notice that they were switching around very frequently & staying w/ 4 cores? sometimes when i change clockspeed cpuz takes a bit to update it so i was wondering if they just hadnt quite updated enough, but hoping it really uses 4 cores that would be amazing! i will def keep turbo on if thats the case :D im guessing it it runs x6 for cpu tests & uses turbo for 3d tests?
That is awsome stuff right there. Dang USA and there slow to get new stuff, crap... LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by ridney
Good point, When is the new AOD coming? This has live data and will be better for testing this thoery.Quote:
Originally Posted by crazydiamond
yes its been torture! ive been living vicariously through our friends around the world this week! cant stay off XS but thats nothing new :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by charged3800z24
Ah, so it's not just me :rofl::p:Quote:
Originally Posted by crazydiamond
I can't wait to get one. My wife will probably make a perminent place on the couch for me when I do get one.
they were switching but i am sure they were running on four cores for a reasonable amount of time, a couple of seconds maybe 4 or 5. It happens quite a lot during GT1 and GT2 tests and i had ran the bench 3 times and is showing similar behavior so i can say it really ran on four cores :) and two extra cores are always on idle.
from what i can see during the cpu test, turbo didn't kick-in frequently and a lot of cores where idle. it wasn't showing the same behavior with those graphics tests
OMG 4 cores on Turbo... Very nice ^_^
thats good to hear :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ridney
about the cpu tests, it was showing some cores as idle? i think the score is reflective of x6@ 3780mhz :shrug:
Great! Wondering why the cpu score is still lowish though. Mad222 got 8K cpu score at 4.3GHz, then again, he had all 6 cores running at that speed plus he was running Windows XP.
Thanks for showing your results Ridney! Keep pushing. :up:
4455MHz + 4455MHz + 4455MHz + 4455MHz + 1080MHz + 1080MHz / 6 cores gives an average speed of 3330MHz, could you rerun at that speed with Turbo off? I'm interested in scaling with cores.
its switching cores constantly, it would be better shown if an app could track what the cpu speed is multiple times per second for every core. the app should only be using 2 cores (i think the games in 3Dmark06 are duel optimized and the cpu tests are much higher), so 2 of them should be at 4.4ghz, and the other 4 should actually be idle. but due to how and when cpuz reads them, i think its just an optical illusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oj101
and hes having trouble turning off turbo, which makes it a real pain to know how well its working, lol
Well, WOW is 5+ years in release at this point. I imagine that when it was primarily being coded, duals weren't even common yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Rendering is ideal for parallelizing, games not so much.
For example, BioWare figured out to do a great job of coding Dragon Age to benefit from 4 cores as it scales by 60%+, but it doesn't gain much of anything with the jump to 6.
I'd imagine there's a lot more to threading a game for multiple cores than just flipping a switch to spawn more workers.
The developers are going to have to figure it out though. It's clear that we're looking at far more growth in cores than Mhz for the foreseeable future.
well the issue is that something has changed or been added so the cpu needs to be stronger, but cant be much stronger. when wow was new, my gpu was a 9800, and my cpu was a single core, and i got 60fps back then even with 40man groups. when they first introduced shadows, my cpu was killed, so i kept it off, then they modified it and now its 10x better and no where near as taxing. so i know, its not a graphics setting since when minimized it still exists. so something weird thats causing low fps that your stuck with, and it seems to be around data movements, so when your around alot of people doing nothing, or a few people doing alot. same number of polys, but animations, or spell effects, or combat logs, and other crap seem to be related to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by AMD-C
for a game that brings in 150 million dollars a month, hopefully they have a team working on spitting off more of the workload to new threads.
i would have seen the same when i was benching with cinebench single thread run, but i didn't ;) with 3dmark06 you can blink 10 times and turbo is still running on those same four sexy cores :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
okay i think it's time to ZZZZzzzzzzz
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5595/pi32m.png
ridney: OMG, this is awesome and crazy! Air? What ambient temps? Can u ran CInebench at 4 GHz (without turbo)? Superpi, omg, omg, omg :D I want it.
whau flank3r! :) i'm running on water (see my sig), the problem with my mobo is that it can't disable turbo (yet) so i'm stuckQuote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
anyways, say hello to my new "on-the-fly" best friend :D
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/8316/thuban053.jpg
Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
When I played WOW (early '05), the game ran great on just about anything.
After taking a look around the web it sounds like the game has become unplayable for a lot of people.
I'm thinking there must be something positively rotten with the game's infrastructure. It's hard to imagine that even the worst client code would cause the game performance to decrease so drastically in spite of 2 CPU generations passing by underneath it.
see the issue is WoW is backed by intel, and intel promised us 10ghz with netburst, and i rest my case, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by AMD-C
seriously though, i have no clue, and its no fun
@ridney, with cinebench u only have 1 thread, so maybe you see 1-2 cores in turbo mode, with 3dmark06 its built for 2 threads, so maybe u see 2-4 cores in turbo. the only true way to tell is to fix that damn un-turbo button, lol
ridney: its beter for OC than C3 Denebs, right? Hope, with refresh BIOS u will can turbo disabled for testing. But u are lucky man :). What about wprime benchmarks?
I'm very interesed on looking at the isolated power consumption of the Processor, X-Bit Labs style. Is actually impressive than these Processors can scale over the average attainable Frequencies of the Deneb RB-C3 when you are actually pushing 6 Cores instead of 4. While I didn't doubt that they could attain the same Frequencies, the real issue would be if the Motherboards VRM would also be capable of as you are indeed consuming more power for having more Cores, at the same Frequencies.
Besides, how that Turbo thing scales? There is a practical limit on how much you can raise the Frequency after a given point. If Turbo raises a fixed 2.5x Multiplier, there should be a bunch of overclocks that borderlines the maximum Frequencies that those Rev. E Cores are capable of without Voltage increase that would make them to become unstable, freeze or crash as soon as the Processor enables Turbo. I mean, if the transistors can't be consistently pushed above, for example, 4 GHz, and Turbo attempts to run a Core at 4.25 GHz just because the other 5 Cores are in Idle, you are going to have issues anyways because you aren't limited by power consumption but by the a physical limit of the transistors themselves.