2 x Quad-Core Opteron B1 operating at 2GHz scored 4242 3DMARK06 cpumarks
Thanx to s7e9h3n :up:
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/5189/3d06cyf8.jpg
Link
single barcelona cpu result - 2907
http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/4...061cpubeq5.jpg
PS Here you can see some Cinebench and Everest results
barcelona 2GHz result (single-threaded)
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/6938/mashn3.jpg
conroe for comparison
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/1...2400mhznh2.png
Nice.. Superpi? :p
Not so bad afterall.
Not too bad...
SkullTrail @ 3.4ghz scored 6359
Not too shabby at all, just needs to get those clocks around 3GHz or higher.
is it me or have i seen single quads do more than that? shouldn't it be better for 8 cores?
I think 06 uses 'only' 4 cores. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
well that would make sense but and i guess for 2ghz it's not bad but i would have liked a bit more.Quote:
Originally Posted by R101
Well the current record is 8000+ by a quadcore Penryn system. I don't see how any AMD system will overcome that.
Well if it does only utilize 4 cores and Barcelona gets that score at 2ghz, it's damn good. A single Yorkfield scores 4569 [From anandtech] at 3ghz.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
It looks as though Barcelona scales really well, but there is no telling how high its frequency can go...
My QuadFx (dual FX70s @ 3ghz)
Main Test Results
3DMark Score 11694 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 4869 Marks
SM 3.0 Score 4731 Marks
CPU Score 4087 Marks
C2Q6600@ 3ghz
3DMark Score 10862 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 4421 Marks
SM 3.0 Score 4168 Marks
CPU Score 4653 Marks
Intel Xeon Octal Core 2000 MHz = 4335
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2982103
Intel Xeon Octal Core 2660 MHz = 5662
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=746484
Intel Q6600 Quad Core 2725 MHz = 4336
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=1837829
so intel still has a small clock per clock advantage. but atleast the K10 is close. all it needs to do is clock like crazy and be mega cheap but some how im doubtin the first one:(Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
Nice find!:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
So '06 uses as many cores as you have...
I think for two cpu's the score is too low [we are talking about 8 cores ... ] ,
plus we dont know yet how easily can barca hit the 3ghz barrier .
anywa1 nice news :)
Nothing special. wait till some more penryn results then we'll see some real scores
Too funny. Slower clock/clock than Clovertown in 2P config, and gets trashed by a *single* 2.725 C2Q.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
Where is Theo Valich? Wasn't he going to "reconfirm" some 30K score? :ROTF: :rofl:
hes digging through his posts on th inq to find a post where he said that it would be slightly slower in 3dmark06 so he can post he always said so:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by terrace215
these results are perfectly fine for the clockspeed. you can't compare a desktop quad to server chips... 06 does not scale to 8 cores as well as it does from 2 to 4, and the ram is much slower on a server board. its comparable to the clovertown score, and it will score the same or higher most likely, when the bugs in the chipset are worked out (if you've actually read the thread this came from, you would've seen the problems i'm talking about)
3d'06 is AMD/ATI biased anyway
check out 3ghz conroe vs 3ghz k8 in 3d'06 cpu http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...=875&chart=419
and 3d'06 graphics http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_20...=875&chart=418
they're closer on that benchmark than most of the others you can choose.
and compare HD2900xt xfire in 3d'06 SM2.0 http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=804&chart=372
and 3d'06 HDR/SM3.0 http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=804&chart=377
where HD2900xt xfire is right behind 8800GTX SLI..
..with overall game fps http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphi...=804&chart=378 where HD2900xt xfire is waaay behind...
slightly AMD biased, and very ATI biased imo
ontopic: so if opteron's losing to xeon in an AMD biased benchmark that isn't such a good sign (for desktop users). xeon takes a bigger performance hit from using fb-dimms instead of ddr2 than opteron does from using registered ddr2 instead of normal ddr2, so it won't look any better when its phenom vs c2q.
Just ran this on my 2.33GHz dual Clovertown, totally unoptimised, all I did was turn BOINC off for the run. OS is Vista X64 btw.
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/a.../cloverCPU.jpg
Where is the new 3dmark any way - they are lagging.
Anyway why use 3dmark at all to test a cpu... 1st thing at hand?
Maybe because some publication claimed 3DMark06 result of 30 000 with 3,0 GHz Phenom..
Dumb statement as usual...Quote:
Originally Posted by hollo
2900 Crossfire is also behind X1950XT Crossfire with overall game fps. So the point is what? Using VGA charts totally drivers dépendant to conclude on CPU is totally pointless.
Heh...
My own 3Dmark06 from an old ES rig, incl spelling error of clovertown.
http://shintai.ambition.cz/pics/cloverton1.png
Wow, that's really unoptimized.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC]Atomicpineapple
My dual clover E5320@2,33 GHz (like yours) score over 5.000 easily while running a virtual machine during the benchmark. :)
The AMD results @ 2,0 GHz are nothing special - no chance against the good old clovertown clock per clock in 3D Mark 06. :rofl:
cu, BitpowerPM
I probably shouldn't post this but here is what Kinc did:
http://www.nordichardware.com/image3.php?id=3886
http://www.nordichardware.com/news,6863.html
If AMD could do this on air or close to that we would all benefit
BTW guys, don't ask me why but CPU scores are not comparable with different vid cards.
check out 2900Xt vs 8800 systems with identical CPU configs, the cpu scores are different between systems, and one of the startup tips confirms this
NVIDIA simply has better drivers. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
//Andreas
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by mAJORD
but is it so difficult for somebody who has 2P Xeon system to get 7950GT and run Mark? it would be interesting to compare AMD and Intel systems with the same video
the point is that 3d'06 CPU and graphics benchmarks are biased towards AMD and ATI when compared to other (real world) benchmarks, for some reason - i was comparing between AMD and Intel/ATI and nVidia, rather than comparing ATI with ATI - the x1950xt with gddr4 beating the HD2900xt with gddr3 in overall games fps shows some heavy memory bandwidth bias, but that's a side point.Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
i didn't do that, i was just pointing out the stupidly good scores for ATI cards in 3d'06 gfx benchmarks. it helps explain why the 3d'06 world record is held by HD2900xt's in crossfire when they're obviously slower than 8800 GTX's SLI in most games. yes, it was a little offtopic.Quote:
Originally Posted by AbelJemka
taken from this qouteQuote:
Originally Posted by KTE
2x QC 3.4GHz (1600FSB-->LOL) : 6359 (unreleased part)
1.8points per Mhz
2x K10 2GHz : 4242-->200FSB LOL
2.21points per Mhz
3.4ghz with 200fsb would result in 7500 points.
It's fair to say that Phenom will be teh real deal :D
Just look at mine, its run with a 7900GT, dual 2.66Ghz clovertowns and scoring 5772.Quote:
Originally Posted by MAS
Or 4330 if you do a raw linaer math down to 2.0Ghz.
So..not really impressive by K10...
wonder what the scores will be when the hardware, much less the O/S and 3dmark, recognize the cpu....
wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
s7e9h3n has a possible knock out solution with working bios which supports K10s on the ASUS L1N64!
Also a note: K10s are B1s running registered 677 cas 5 memory in single channel(lol)!
Oh I forgot, its another wait and see game. Then around xmas time its gonna be wait and see on 45nm and then wait and see on bulldozer...ye ok. Sorry my mistake. All hail AMD.
Wake me up when its actually faster...
that's not bad, neither I'm too enthusiast beacause the real deal is how far it clocks
lmao Shintai,same story all over again...
Ye, and we are still waiting for your magical numbers to appear. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Strange this didn't get mentioned earlier. The K10's are the crippled versions, running 667 fsb and single channel. It's a start, and I applaud S7 for his effort, but there's a ways to go.
C.mon, Play nice guys or it's the same flame war over and over and over ad nauseum..
Please..For my sake..My fingers can't take the typing!:D
Take note that score by s7e9h3n...
done on everything at stock
2 x Barcelona @ 2GHz
Stepping B1
Single Channel Memory :D
at 5-5-7-15-21-1T
Even with GDDR3 2900XT has much more memory bandwidth than X1950XTX (100 Go/s vs 60 Go/s) so you plainly wrong ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by hollo
Telling 3D06 is biased because ATI cards hold world record is easy. The way this benchmark is coded favoured ATI that's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilDoc
just nobody listened... intel fans see what they want to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by cky2k6
Yeah but most people are selective readers, you beat them with numbers still they wil say a banana is a pine apple :DQuote:
Originally Posted by tictac
LOL... yeah... anyway he got new bios from asus to test it on Asus L1n64-SLI board ... give him some times :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
Yep,the "teaser" thread in AMD section became even more teasing now :D.Waiting for some news from Steven,if anyone can get it to work right,it's him :)Quote:
Originally Posted by tictac
a step, lets see some desktop platform Phenoms now! The wait is killing me!
Agreed. I need a new system bad, and I want to wait for Phenom, but dang!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by EvlUndrWareNome
I've always been AMD biased. I built my first pc with an Asus cusl2 and a celly 533mhz (last time I listen to tom's hardware) and I hated it. I went with amd since then and love them. A company a fraction the size of intel and it was kicking the crap out of them in the enthusiast sector. Then I needed a new system and core 2 came out. I went back to intel. AMD needs to hurry and release something. I'd like to have both, but won't waste money on inferior cpu's. Especially if they are going to change the socket on me once a year...
Opteron 1000 proccies are code named Budapest I believe.
We won't see comparable cpu results until AMD get beyond the current rev in q1 08, which is when they'll launch the 2.0 Ghz - 2.6Ghz Quads.
Perkam
:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by MR_SmartAss
but the doctor isnt as funny anymore as he was.... no more Intel 2Q08 BK allegations... :(
You forgot 'low cost'. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
I wish you could realize what a noob you are for saying that ;) First one is 400 MHz quad pumped, and the second is not even an FSB at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
I think I'll reserve judgement for now, it would be nice for the K10 to be able to match anything Intel throw at it, purely from a competitive point of view, then we'll be able to pick whatever flavour appeals to us more. Currently my build is still going Q6600 though and it doesn't look like there will be a reply from AMD soon enough to effect that choice...
I'm a noob, i won't deny, that.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by IvanAndreevich
But i was rather aiming to the old standard AMD is using, for how many years now are they using the 200Mhz*X? a long time while Intel still pumps it up...
we do the pumping up for AMD :DQuote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
Pump it, Pump it real good,:rofl: Hey, Intel must be pumping it right, they've made a lot a money.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
well considering that the barc. CPU's have a lot of stuff turned off. HT3 being one of them this is not bad at all!
cant wait till someone gets their hands on a phenom :)
relevance to thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
=> none,more Intel BS
I didn't bring up Intel, BeardyMan did. If you don't like it, please make that same post and request to him?Quote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
Now. Are you really that biased?Quote:
But i was rather aiming to the old standard AMD is using, for how many years now are they using the 200Mhz*X? a long time while Intel still pumps it up...
native quad pump fsb.. pump it up to 400mhz .. yeah 1600 front side bus.. hehe
It's good that you know yourself, because you obviously are one.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeardyMan
Try to understand hypertransport and then come back.
200MHz is on the low side but most people will simply running it 600MHz - 1000MHz.
Phenom moved to Q1 2008.Quote:
Originally Posted by hardrail
http://images.vnu.net/gb/inquirer/ne...d-guidance.jpg
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ch-2007-whoops
Moved?WHere does it say?Or you concluded it with non existing slide that Inq didn't recieve?
Didn't you find it a little odd that the Phenom CPU/RV670 GPU combo is missing,and the RV670 is coming in November??Doess this means RV670 is moved to Q1 too??
Right..
I see only 45W products (?). :(
Where are the rest?
Better ask where is RV670 on those roadmaps,since it is coming in November :rolleyes:
That doesn't offer anything to refute what AMD has said since July. Phenom FX and then Phenom. They have "upto 2.6GHz planned" for this year, and I'm not sure if that applies to the 10h family of products overall or just Barcelona Opteron.
Just let the man do his job ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
single cpu result added - see the first post
2907 at 1995MHz and HTT=1x
authenticate please.
some tests added
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/6938/mashn3.jpg
progs links
http://slil.ru/24945619
http://slil.ru/24945621
taken from thread http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...158051&page=37
Vecmat is only single-threaded. :/
My scores:
Dual Clovertown @ 2,33 GHz:
http://lh5.google.com/wirelesspirat/...png&imgmax=640
Dual Clovertown @ 2,00 GHz:
http://lh5.google.com/wirelesspirat/...png&imgmax=640
Clear advantage @ SSE operations compared to Barcelona. :yepp:
Barcelona do better in the other tests without SSE.
cu BitpowerPM