gosh, you posts are just a bunch of excuses for why AMD fails to match or beat Intel.
Printable View
gosh, you posts are just a bunch of excuses for why AMD fails to match or beat Intel.
Well I can tell you that even I was suprised when I saw results from World in Conflict that Jack did. I was starting to wounder if he had forgotten to disable the TLB bug. The difference was so big that it can’t even be explained by differences between how the processors work. You need to optimize for one processor to get that big difference so I looked it up. And found it, Intel has been helping them…Quote:
Originally Posted by Loser777
I know it’s hard for a non programmer to understand. But if one game scales to large threads and don’t share memory and don’t syncronize threads then it works well on intel. It’s like running separate single threaded applications that has some point where they joins work and then they go back to work again. This is also easier to do for programmers but it isn’t effective if you really want to use all the power that the processor has. I did show you a link bout the render split design before.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the did use intel’s compiler on the World in Conflict also.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?...3&cid=13042922
http://aceshardware.freeforums.org/c...iler-t428.html
Again with the programmer excuse. Seriously, pal, no disrespect intended, but knowing how to code doesn't mean anything at all. Just because you are a programmer does not mean you know more than others. And you are the one who suddenly come out with Phenom winning against even Q9450 while hundreds of others find Phenom not even measuring up against Q6600 in most cases.
If you are so knowledgeable, would you mind explaining why Intel processors do so much better than AMD processors with PCSX2? (In the same manner you have been "explaining" things, that is)
Oh geez the coding again, anyways if it where a coding issue whats the point in buying a phenom rig for gaming considering everything is better optimized to run on Intel anyways if thats the case.
Hmmmm, so basically what we have is build Intel and get better performance in a desktop environment say 95% of the time due to universally optimized coding or buy Phenom for better bandwidth but is slower 95% of the time at the same task due to lack of optimized code.
Because AMD will run all that Intel runs without problems too, and if you add applications doing normal work AMD will like it more.Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
You can also be certain of that Intel is doing what they can to change how developers create applications. Nehalem/Larrabee etc is thread monsters (more than phenom), you need to scale well in order to use all the power in those processors. If ray tracing will arrive then you probably also going to need one processor that is good at scaling to threads.
The memcpy Intel seems to do with their compiler is really ugly, it is one of the most common functions used in DirectX games (maybe game developers know this if they use intel compiler and write their own function)
Does not matter. Regardless, games were made for Intel processor, and they run better on Intel as they were written for Intel (you are implying this) so end of story.
You just literally admitted to Intel being better at handling game, sir.
What type of game?Quote:
Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner
Every type of game. Unless you are telling me you know precisely how each game works even without looking at their source code?
Well it isn’t.Quote:
Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner
There are some links in this thread showing that AMD performs better on high resolutions.
Single threaded games you may be right, core 2 is designed for that
:brick:
I read this entire thread...no amount of factual information is going to get gosh to finally come around. He will continue on his path of circular reasoning until you guys flare out...and then he will claim victory.
Is this a competition?Quote:
Originally Posted by skinnee
Do you feel better if I say that you win?
This discussion is about processors. I think all knows the future, it's about threading. Applications will shift from single threaded to multithreaded more and more. When you are going to gain on using a quad depends on what type of applications he/she is using today. Most of us will do very well on duals.
The main argument in gaming when threaded games are used for AMD hasn’t been talked about as much here. It’s about bottlenecks. We mostly talks about which can get highest avg FPS.
What really sad is that reality isn’t shown in tests and that favours Intel when all these tests are done. Intel will be stronger and stronger, if AMD was a bit more late with the 48xx serie than they might had been in SERIOUS trouble. If there isn’t any AMD then we all loose and all shareholders at Intel will be happy.
victory in the intellectual sense...:brick:
There are over a hundred links on Google to show otherwise. And there are more links and data in this thread that say otherwise, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Plus you did not answer my question. Why does Intel Core 2 work better with PCSX2 than AMD Phenom? We DO have the PCSX2 source code (the latest SVN is 384), so you can peep in it for technical details right there. Care to elaborate based on your expertise in programming?
Have been asking for those links before, can you show me?Quote:
Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner
Show me the code and then I will be able to answer. I don't know how they have coded that application and I think that even you will understand that is impossible for anyone to explain why.Quote:
Originally Posted by RunawayPrisoner
I can give you some clues tough. It’s difficult to do threading; it is probably very difficult emulating threads from other code effectively. That program probably want raw processor power (high Hz) and fast cache.
:) :) Well I will never break you of your paranoia but look at this last line... the thread their updates per physics, shadow volumes (fog), particles, and tree .... hmmmm, after the update... that get's sent to the GPU. Frame by frame, each thread works in parallel to complete a update to the frame which is then sent to the GPU ....Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Thanks for the link...
Jack
:) ... I am using B3 silicon, it does not have the TLB bug and turning the patch on or off via BIOS or AOD makes no difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Here is a comprehensive effect of the TLB patch on /off on a 2.3 GHz 9600 BE http://forum.xcpus.com/motherboard-c...om-menace.html
I haven't generated the charts yet, but for the all low res/low detail (CPU bound condition) at 1280x1024
pre Patch: Max = 139 Ave = 61 Min = 30
post Patch: Max = 111 Ave = 51 Min = 28
Unlike some of the silly runs here just to answer questions, the data in the article above is usually run 3 times for reproducibility, averaged, and reported as an average, the data I quote above is from the first run.
I can post screen shots if you like.
Computationally, the TLB patch is a huge hit -- especially on games, but considering that games page most of their memory and are so branchy, it is not surprising. However, I have also never observed a TLB bug manifest itself, it was an unfortunate PR disaster for AMD, but running a B2 (TLB bug) processor is perfectly stable over the 20 or so games I tested on it. I would have no reservations recommending someone take a B2 CPU if they so desired, the TLB bug was blown way way out of proportion.
Jack
To Gosh:
Phenom 9850
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardwar...261_3737046__9
http://www.techspot.com/review/93-am...on/page10.html
http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/articl...0&pagenumber=3
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...9550_b3_cpus/7
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...9550_b3_cpus/8
http://hothardware.com/Articles/AMD-...vision/?page=7
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2282402,00.asp
(The following has 3870X2 data)
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...view/page5.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...view/page6.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...view/page7.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...iew/page10.asp
(The following has TLB and without TLB data)
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14424/4
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14424/5
Phenom 9900
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/597/8/
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/597/9/
I would post more but I am really tired of copying and pasting... there are just too many. And most of them show that between 1280 x 1024 to 1600 x 1200 for instance, Intel leads. And Phenom occasionally breaks through in one or two specific games (F.E.A.R., Company of Heroes) but Phenom can't even measure up to Q6600/Q6700 in the rest of the test. In the Q9300 showdown, Phenom only had an edge with CoH, and mind you, E8500 still won over Phenom in that test at high res.
And PCSX2 source code can be found at http://www.pcsx2.net
Does it hurt to actually do the Googling yourself every once in a while?
ooops... weird, double post.
:) This is because of the configuration -- it throttles at the GPU :) .... you just can't get that :) and even observing the data, watching faster GPUs relieve that bottle neck and go to higher FPS doesn't convince you. This is just weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
It's ok Gosh -- nobody believes you, this is why you get the gruff you get. You're really a nice guy overall. Bottom line, it does not matter -- if running at high resolution -- who is better. Even if the GPU is the limiter and AMD scores 4 FPS higher by some forum random postings, the game play will be the same on either.
Unfortunately, if you bought a Phenom with this misconception on a 8800GTX card, thinking you would be able to exploit the latest round of cards ... you have wasted your money on a GPU upgrade, the Phenom will just not feed it fast enough (not because of lack of BW, but because it takes the Phenom longer to complete the computational cycle).
The X2's came today, I should have some data by tonight....
I won't flare out :) ... this is fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by skinnee
All the data produced in this thread are games that are multithreaded across all 4 cores...Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Lost Planet, GRID, World in Conflict utilize all 4 cores. Gosh -- clock for clock, Intel produces a computational result faster than AMD does single threaded, dual threaded or quadruple threaded... there is no question.
Does this make the Phenom a bad CPU? No. Does it require AMD to price it accordingly? Yes. This is why AMD is losing billions, they cannot make a profit and charge 200 bucks or less for a quad core processor, while trying to support the low end with dual cores that are even slower than the competition.
True enough. I get about 20fps in Lost Planet with 8x AA and 16x AF, but the game looks pretty, and still runs mirror smooth. Same goes for Crysis. It just doesn't matter which one runs better. 1 or 2fps isn't that important.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Grats! Start spanking something? I'm expecting lots of graphss and lots of paragraphs in a separate thread. :up:Quote:
The X2's came today, I should have some data by tonight....
very interesting to see :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
is this done with phenom (or is it fake maybe)?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=197648
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1218151935
I partly agree with you ;), there is at least one szenario where Phenom will outperform an Intel2Q just due superior architecture. Excuse me for not adding some information about gpu bound discussionen.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
I just quote myself
At least for a game such a szenario will be very rare just because of the fact most of the games have one "main" thread for gpu rendering and some help threads for the other stuff (KI...) . For an Intel thats very great the prefetcher can "always" allocat the Data to the right core. From my personal technological view C2D is the best DualCore Processor but i terms of QuadCore processors K10 is the better (and so will be Nehalem)Quote:
That is, in principle, the huge advantage of the C2D. It loads the data early enough to perform efficiently, so the application can count immediately, without accessing the memory .
This principle can get problems with SMT and crashes with ongoing data transfer (depending of the type of data transfer , its important how much data has to be calculated). In terms of streaming Data K10 wins, in terms of ex. video encoding there is more calculating and the C2D takes advantage of its huge L2Cache an the mighty prefetcher in the background.
Now here comes the problem: with SMT and 4 (or more) Threads the prefetcher has problems finding out which Data is needed an works partially effective. Does the prefetcher well the result is very good and L2 and prefetcher works great. But when something unexpected happens a very long memory access is needed and the whole structure collapses while k10 still can handle the coherency due to the shared L3 Cache and even if the Data is not in the L3 Cache K10 can loads the Data 3 times faster then C2Q. Again : this will happen only with massive SMT .
Fair enough, I should have been a bit less commanding and left room in the wording... my bad. ... there are situations where the architecture does shine ... h264 encoding is a great example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boschwanza