3DMark Vantage Loves The Cores: QCs FTW !!

Here it is, courtesy of Freak and PC Games Hardware Germany:

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/4701/cpuqs2.png

Intel is leading and owning and it looks like the benchmark LOVES the extra L2 as well :)

Also, Phenom finally gets its much needed push towards competitiveness. The difference between the QX6850 and the Phenom 9x50 at 3 ghz is 900 points, but it dwindles to 122 points when the final score is calculated. Similarly, the difference between the 3Ghz Q9650 and 3Ghz Phenom scores is almost 2700 points, but when the final score is tallied it is translated to a 365 point lead overall.

Although the Phenoms cannot clock over 3.2 and 3.3 even on the best of chips and the Intel Q9xxx series has been known to reach 4Ghz with ease, 3D Mark Vantage, far from being a perfect benchmark, does well to incorporate a core-based CPU performance approach with greater emphasis on GPU power, which gives AMD a smaller gap to overcome relative to previous 3D benchmarks. AMDs tri-core offerings get a much needed boost from the third core leaving behind Intels fast-clocking E8x00 and E7x00 series. Though the performance boost does not represent in-game performance, it does demonstrate an instance where AMDs attempt to undercut Intels new faster 45nm dual core offerings by offering a cheap tri-core to make up for lower clockspeed has been somewhat successful, in this and other multi-threaded benchmarks, which should encourage AMD Phenom users to check it out as well :up:, as I`m sure Intel enthusiasts will be trying to see how they fare in the extreme setting :eek:

Perkam

Yes it is good to see a quad core optimised benchmark at last :)

Now only if games could start being better optimised for quad cores.

It is really nice to see a benchmark that finally lets Phenom show what it's made of. I mean, besides the errata, which from what I know of it is unavoidable, it's a really great chip. Intel just released a quad (albeit "fake") long before they did it the right way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swatrecon_

It is really nice to see a benchmark that finally lets Phenom show what it's made of. I mean, besides the errata, which from what I know of it is unavoidable, it's a really great chip. Intel just released a quad (albeit "fake") long before they did it the right way.

---

actually the newer B3 revision that are now out in the wild don't have the errata and seem to OC better too :)

X3 8750 at 3.1ghz, must be the best overclock for a non-BE phenom.

How is a 9850 at 3.0ghz getting beat by a 2.5ghz Q9300 showing off Phenom's competitiveness?

Lol, I'll probably get flamed for this, but I'm just pointing out the obvious.

"3DMark Vantage Breathes New Life Into AMD Phenom"

How? I don't think this benchmark shows Phenom in a positive light at all, especially the quads. The fastest Phenom, a 9850BE @ 3GHz is slower than a stock Q9300 @ 2.5GHz. If you count max overclock, its 40% slower than a Q6600 @ 3.8GHz.

Moving on to the X3, at stock they match up well with C2Ds, but at max overclock falls behind slightly. However, considering the small price gap between tris and quads at this point, it doesn't really make much sense to get an X3, especially if you want maximum 3DMark e-peen scores. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

"3DMark Vantage Breathes New Life Into AMD Phenom"

How? I don't think this benchmark shows Phenom in a positive light at all, especially the quads. The fastest Phenom, a 9850BE @ 3GHz is slower than a stock Q9300 @ 2.5GHz. If you count max overclock, its 40% slower than a Q6600 @ 3.8GHz.

Moving on to the X3, at stock they match up well with C2Ds, but at max overclock falls behind slightly. However, considering the small price gap between tris and quads at this point, it doesn't really make much sense to get an X3, especially if you want maximum 3DMark e-peen scores. ;)

---

Exact defintion of 3D Mark (waits for flaming):rolleyes:

AMD is teh ROFL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swatrecon_

It is really nice to see a benchmark that finally lets Phenom show what it's made of. I mean, besides the errata, which from what I know of it is unavoidable, it's a really great chip. Intel just released a quad (albeit "fake") long before they did it the right way.

---

I'll bet Phenom would fly if intel made their boards. But, seriously is this test done on Nvidia 780i for Core2 and 780A for Phenom?, otherwise it isn't necesarily comparable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

"3DMark Vantage Breathes New Life Into AMD Phenom"

How? I don't think this benchmark shows Phenom in a positive light at all, especially the quads. The fastest Phenom, a 9850BE @ 3GHz is slower than a stock Q9300 @ 2.5GHz. If you count max overclock, its 40% slower than a Q6600 @ 3.8GHz.

Moving on to the X3, at stock they match up well with C2Ds, but at max overclock falls behind slightly. However, considering the small price gap between tris and quads at this point, it doesn't really make much sense to get an X3, especially if you want maximum 3DMark e-peen scores. ;)

---

Ecactly, a Pentim 2160 OC'd is better than the lowest Phenom, also worth noting it's higher than a Stock EX6850 lol

404 life not found

I don't know how accurate those results are really, but it's not surprise to me to see Phenom being beaten, again.

I got a tick over 10,000 with my system, but overclocked memory and FSB/HT etc. can have a good effect on the score. Here's a C2Q@ 3.0Ghz, scores 10128.

3DMV doesn't breath new life into Phenom, it is what it is, slower per clock then C2, not horribly slow like many, many Intel pushers constantly like to bring up, but slower none the less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eleeter

3DMV doesn't breath new life into Phenom, it is what it is, slower per clock then C2, not horribly slow like many, many Intel pushers constantly like to bring up, but slower none the less.

---

When compared against Kentsfield, its slightly slower per clock, but against Yorkfield the deficit is quite substantial, around 25%. Does that make it 'horribly slow'? Not in my opinion, but if you ask hardc0re 3DMark benchers they'll probably have a different view. :p

is it safe to say that the only thing being breathed in here is carbon monoxide? :lol:

All this Phenom hating, lol, but its so true. Last week I was looking @ Tri Core Phenoms as a new CPU. I figured, well hey, $149 and they clock to 3GHz relatively easy. Should be a good CPU! I'm downgrading my rig so I thought well, even if its slower than my Xeon 3060 I'll still have one more core right?

Then I realized the E4500 is $119, and it's faster, and it runs cooler..... then I felt like a complete idiot for thinking Phenom was a good idea. :rolleyes:

The 3.0ghz phenom get beat by a 2.5ghz castrated Q9300.

This thread is pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

"3DMark Vantage Breathes New Life Into AMD Phenom"

How? I don't think this benchmark shows Phenom in a positive light at all, especially the quads. The fastest Phenom, a 9850BE @ 3GHz is slower than a stock Q9300 @ 2.5GHz. If you count max overclock, its 40% slower than a Q6600 @ 3.8GHz.

Moving on to the X3, at stock they match up well with C2Ds, but at max overclock falls behind slightly. However, considering the small price gap between tris and quads at this point, it doesn't really make much sense to get an X3, especially if you want maximum 3DMark e-peen scores. ;)

---

Yeah, you are right, some X3's are not that worth. But the lower end's X3 is not bad.
If we compare amd vs intel with respect to the CPU price, I think AMD is doing ok with lower end X3. Take a look at the CPUs, price and vantage score (I got the pricelist from egg :D ) at stock speed:

X3 8450 $148.00 = 5179
X3 8650 $165.99 = 5623
X3 8750 $195.00 = 5942
X4 9550 $199.99 = 7231

C2D E8200 $184.99 = ~5262 (no score from the chart, scaled from E8500 score)
C2D E8400 $189.99 = ~5934 (scaled form E8500)
C2D E8500 $279.99 = 6251 (expensive due to shortage?:confused: )
Q6600 $229 = 8598

As you can see, at stock speed it's not that bad. But Q6600 has the highest vantage score per dollar :D.

Of course, for us where overclocking is a big concern, Intel has a way bigger advantage.:yepp:

who needs Phenom with consuption like hell? Look at Q9300 ... for that money best chip ever and consuption like a calculator ...

to be fair, it scales fairly well, 2.5 ghz to 3.0 .. 20% clock..and score is 16.55%.. not bad disparity.

although doing the calculations for the 9300... it seems a 20% clock increase.. 2.5 to 3... leads to 20.5% performance increase.. lol what kind of curve is this..9300 arch underclocked at 2.5... or non linear scale? or bad maths on my part?

HOW on earth is this putting Phenom in a positive light? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

...although at the same time it kills hopes for ATI to come to the top anytime soon :ROTF:

But yea, here it is, courtesy of Freak and PC Games Hardware Germany:



Yep, Phenom finally gets its much needed push towards competitiveness.

Perkam

---

I don't get it:shrug: , not saying that phenom is not getting better, In fact I am sure there are benchmarks where it would fair better against Intel than in this test.
what am I missing? because to me this looks like a pretty poor showing for phenom, No?

As others have pointed out.. how does this breath life into AMD?

Intel's Q9300 - their lowest end quad core at stock outscored AMD's top-end processor that was overclocked to its limit. The Q9300 has a 60 watt lower power consumption than the X4 9850, and that's when the X4 isn't even overclocked.

If anything, this shows the futility of AMD's offerings. At least in most other benchmarks, an X4 9850 @ 3Ghz would beat a Q9300 pretty significantly. This is just embarrassing.

Looking on Q6600 vs Q9300 and others I think there was some synthetic memory bench there :p:

This bench is another joke like 3Dmark when compared to real life.

just look at the results, vantage is very cache friendly....

a phenom +0.1 speed increase provides roughly + 250/280 score depending on x3 or x4
same for the q9300-q9450 comparison + 278 points

but going from 7300-8300 @ same speed you increase more then 600 points
so increasing from q6600-q9300 gives you 0.1 speed advantage + 2x cache increase so that explains the big jump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Looking on Q6600 vs Q9300 and others I think there was some synthetic memory bench there :p:

This bench is another joke like 3Dmark when compared to real life.

---

Define real life. Then show a bench which isn't a joke when compared to - so called - "real life".

There can't be any bench which could accurately show "real life" performance of a CPU/GPU. Since CPU and GPU are build in different ways, with different parts, and then there are alot of different programs which work in very different way, no one can never make a benchmark which could alone show if something is better than other "in real life".

If 3d mark 06 is anything to go buy, which became CPU limited, then this should be a good way to bench the CPU's.

I too don't see how this is showing that AMD has anything even close the intel.

But it is showing that theyre getting better. Now if they can get this into a 45nm without errata and a lower consumption, they would make very fast HT or business computers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Define real life. Then show a bench which isn't a joke when compared to - so called - "real life".

There can't be any bench which could accurately show "real life" performance of a CPU/GPU. Since CPU and GPU are build in different ways, with different parts, and then there are alot of different programs which work in very different way, no one can never make a benchmark which could alone show if something is better than other "in real life".

---

Well would be nice if they didnt absolutely made benches that you couldnt compare at all to real world. Again..3Dmark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Well would be nice if they didnt absolutely made benches that you couldnt compare at all to real world. Again..3Dmark

---

Easy to say this..

But to me its pretty obvious which CPU will be faster when playing games, one that scores 8,000 or one that scores 10,000.

Game or synthetic, it still runs the CPU full steam, and gives you a good idea of real life preformance.

I'm not saying at all that its perfect, or that the FPS you get in a bench match that of a game.

What I'm saying is, mostly, if you bench a CPU and its clearly the winner of a bench, it will more than likely be faster at anything else using similar instructions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidletterboyz

Yeah, you are right, some X3's are not that worth. But the lower end's X3 is not bad.

Of course, for us where overclocking is a big concern, Intel has a way bigger advantage.:yepp:

---

Yeah, I was looking more at the O/C performance, if you count stock performance the X3 8450 does pretty well in the bang for buck stakes, but the E7200 for $133 would be my pick for the sub $150 bracket.

Anyhow, I'm not sure what the fuss is over this benchmark, I never particularly paid much attention to 3DMark scores at all, real world gaming performance is where its at for me. :up:

mh, i have to agree with most of the posts here.

i mean, how exactly is this chart supposed to show phenom's competitiveness? sadly, it shows exactly the same picture/impression we had from phenom before: it's slower than competitive products from intel.

it's not bad either, but we already knew that from the like 23985629386293865 benchmarks we saw before ;)

one cpu seems to be missing... well two...

q9550
e8400

and why is a sempron in there lol ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hecktic

one cpu seems to be missing... well two...

q9550
e8400

and why is a sempron in there lol ??

---

i'd say they benched everything they had :D

I don't see how this is good at all.

highest score is on a q9770 @ 4GHz

benchers will be pushing those near 6 GHz.
and phenom still looses clock per clock and scales worse.

Obviously 3dmark vantage is optimized for intel processors through sse or something. In most games phenom is not as fast as the competition, but the difference is usually not this big.

If you want a good CPU benchmark use PCSX2 PS2 emulator, performance scales linearly with overclocked CPU amount. :D However it only supports up to dual core, quads give no benefit at all.

First post updated.

For those who believe this thread is useless, threads gain momentum and support from posts, which move them up to the beginning of the list. Therefore, if one does not like a thread, they are welcome not to post.

It is a trade off. You post to give your opinion, which may be negative, but for that opinion to matter, it needs to be heard, and when it is, the thread gains value, as does the topic. Vice Versa, not posting in a thread you feel is wrong means the thread has less traffic but the content of the thread remains consistent with the topic of the first post, so it doesnt make any sense to post in a thread for its closure, its counter intuitive :)

The point of the thread was to point out that the Phenoms are closer to Intel offerings than they were in 3dMark 06. No one expected Phenoms to beat Intel in 3D Mark Vantage, and it would be a sham of a benchmark if that was the case. Everyone expected the Phenoms to be slower, but it turns out benching vantage with a Phenom vs an Intel qc will have a smaller impact this time around, giving AMD a much needed boost, as stated in the first post.

Perkam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

First post updated.

For those who believe this thread is useless, threads gain momentum and support from posts, which move them up to the beginning of the list. Therefore, if one does not like a thread, they are welcome not to post.

It is a trade off. You post to give your opinion, which may be negative, but for that opinion to matter, it needs to be heard, and when it is, the thread gains value, as does the topic. Vice Versa, not posting in a thread you feel is wrong means the thread has less traffic but the content of the thread remains consistent with the topic of the first post, so it doesnt make any sense to post in a thread for its closure, its counter intuitive :)

Perkam

---

Don't get the wrong idea Perkam, the thread is far from useless.

I just feel unless AMD do something about the phenom (especially with the great deals on a Q6600 etc) these days, then its the phenom thats useless..

Well not useless, but being pushed behind because now even the prices are not so great when the lower end intel parts that have similar if not more preformance, can sometimes cost the same or less, but come with a smaller die, less heat, more OC potential, and less consumption.

I hope AMD hits a nice 45nm soon I really do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim

HOW on earth is this putting Phenom in a positive light? :confused: :confused: :confused:

---

Just to try and give an answer to everyone with this same question ...

The Phenom still 'sucks'. Theres no doubt that a quad core Phenom from AMD still cant compete with Intels Quad cores.

However, up untill now, in just about every benchmark and game so far, the etire Phenom range was even surpassed by the core 2 duo. It wasnt surprising to see reviews where the Intel E8400 was outperforming everysingle AMD processor available today. However, none of these earlier benchmarks and games were optimised for quad core proccessors.

Vantage however sees a very nice boost between dual and quad core processors, and for probably the first time yet, we can see the Phenom outperforming the Core 2 duos.

Although this performance will never be seen currently in non optimised games, and I still wouldnt ever buy any current AMD CPU, we do at least see that the phenom can outperform the core 2 duo at least.

But if you want a quad core, you should definately be buying the Q6600, and not the Phenom. They are still quite sucky in comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The0men

Don't get the wrong idea Perkam, the thread is far from useless.

I just feel unless AMD do something about the phenom (especially with the great deals on a Q6600 etc) these days, then its the phenom thats useless..

Well not useless, but being pushed behind because now even the prices are not so great when the lower end intel parts that have similar if not more preformance, can sometimes cost the same or less, but come with a smaller die, less heat, more OC potential, and less consumption.

I hope AMD hits a nice 45nm soon I really do.

---

Its about envelopes right now.

AMD cant clock Phenoms higher without pushing them into higher wattage envelopes which take away from its "energy efficient" and "low power" monikers. So yes, 45nm should help.

Perkam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

just look at the results, vantage is very cache friendly....

a phenom +0.1 speed increase provides roughly + 250/280 score depending on x3 or x4
same for the q9300-q9450 comparison + 278 points

but going from 7300-8300 @ same speed you increase more then 600 points
so increasing from q6600-q9300 gives you 0.1 speed advantage + 2x cache increase so that explains the big jump.

---

But a Q9300 has LESS cache than a Q6600. So it aint that :) (3mb vs 4Mb)

It does have larger associativity though, and less latency iirc.

also the FSB is higher.. a possibility

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

Its about envelopes right now.

AMD cant clock Phenoms higher without pushing them into higher wattage envelopes which take away from its "energy efficient" and "low power" monikers. So yes, 45nm should help.

Perkam

---

125W+ aint energy efficient or low power :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

125W+ aint energy efficient or low power :p:

---

Sad but true.

:sofa:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NickS

Sad but true.

:sofa:

---

:poke: So you finally decided to post your Dad's Intel rig as your own :shakes: Acting all cool and such :p:

Perkam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

The point of the thread was to point out that the Phenoms are closer to Intel offerings than they were in 3dMark 06. No one expected Phenoms to beat Intel in 3D Mark Vantage, and it would be a sham of a benchmark if that was the case. Everyone expected the Phenoms to be slower, but it turns out benching vantage with a Phenom vs an Intel qc will have a smaller impact this time around, giving AMD a much needed boost, as stated in the first post.

---

What are you talking about? The relative gap between C2Q and Phenom has actually increased with 3DMark Vantage compared to 3DMark 06, this is especially apparent with the 45nm C2Qs.

3DMark06 CPU Test numbers courtesy of THG CPU Charts 2007:
C2Q QX9650 @ 3GHz - 4357
C2Q Q6600 @ 2.4GHz - 3507
Phenom 9700 @ 2.4GHz - 3347

Extrapolating from the Phenom 9700 numbers, a Phenom 9850 would score approx 3500 points, effectively tieing with the Q6600 and about ~25% behind a QX9650.

Compare that to 3DMark Vantage:
C2Q QX9650 @ 3GHz - 12407
C2Q Q6600 @ 2.4GHz - 8598
Phenom 9850 @ 2.5GHz - 8340

As you can see, a QX9650 is now ~49% faster than a Phenom 9850, up from ~25% in 3DMark06. A Q6600 is now 3% faster than a Phenom 9850, whereas they would be virtually tied in 3DMark06. In all cases, the performance gap between C2Q and Phenom grows, slightly in the case of Kentsfield, significantly in the case of Yorkfield. I don't know how much clearer I can make this, your interpretation of the data is simply wrong.

Sorry perkam, your theory is busted. :down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

What are you talking about? The relative gap between C2Q and Phenom has actually increased with 3DMark Vantage compared to 3DMark 06, this is especially apparent with the 45nm C2Qs.

3DMark06 CPU Test numbers courtesy of THG CPU Charts 2007:
C2Q QX9650 @ 3GHz - 4357
C2Q Q6600 @ 2.4GHz - 3507
Phenom 9700 @ 2.4GHz - 3347

Extrapolating from the Phenom 9700 numbers, a Phenom 9850 would score approx 3500 points, effectively tieing with the Q6600 and about ~25% behind a QX9650.

Compare that to 3DMark Vantage:
C2Q QX9650 @ 3GHz - 12407
C2Q Q6600 @ 2.4GHz - 8598
Phenom 9850 @ 2.5GHz - 8340

As you can see, a QX9650 is now ~49% faster than a Phenom 9850, up from ~25% in 3DMark06. A Q6600 is now 3% faster than a Phenom 9850, whereas they would be virtually tied in 3DMark06. In all cases, the performance gap between C2Q and Phenom grows, slightly in the case of Kentsfield, significantly in the case of Yorkfield. I don't know how much clearer I can make this, your interpretation of the data is simply wrong.

Sorry perkam, your theory is busted. :down:

---

Well, I'm not here to go back and forth, but based on YOUR OWN numbers, the Q6600 was ahead by 7% in 3dMark 06 and is now only ahead by 2.5% in 3DMark Vantage. Ty for helping my argument out :up:. (Remember that a 200 point difference to a 3000 pt score is 7% of the score, while a 200 point different to an 8000 point score is much smaller ;) )

Though, I'm flattered that you went through the (if a tad incoherent) analysis to try to disprove me, but read my first post. The "EFFECT" of the final cpu score is so low in 3dmark vantage that, even with a 4ghz QX9650 and a 3ghz Phenom 9850, one can manage to get very similar scores, which was not possible before.

I would like to see you try to debunk my statement on Tri-cores in the first post :)

Perkam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

I'm flattered that you went through the (if a tad incoherent) analysis to try to disprove me, but read my first post.

The "EFFECT" of the final cpu score is so low in 3dmark vantage that, even with a 4ghz QX9650 and a 3ghz Phenom 9850, one can manage to get very similar scores, which was not possible before.

I would like to see you try to debunk my statement on Tri-cores in the first post :)

Perkam

---

Umm, your original post linked to the CPU score of 3DMark Vantage, not the overall score. You never mentioned the EFFECT it had on the overall score, heck, your OP (before the edit) was just a 2 sentence job saying how awesome Phenom was. :rolleyes:

If all along your intent was to show how the weighting of the CPU score has changed from 3DMark 06 then you took a while to actually get your point across. I haven't actually examined the weighting system much (I'm not a hardcore 3Dmark bencher :p:), if you have such data please provide it. :up:

With regard to X3, this is what I've found:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/697/11/
3DMark06 CPU score:
C2D E8500 - 2941
X3 8750 - 2733
E8500 is 7.6% faster than X3 8750

3DMark Vantage CPU score:
C2D E8500 - 6251
X3 8750 - 5942
E8500 is 5.2% faster than X3 8750

So X3 makes a ~2.5% gain on C2D from 3DMark06 to 3DMark Vantage, are we supposed to get excited? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

Umm, your original post linked to the CPU score of 3DMark Vantage, not the overall score. You never mentioned the EFFECT it had on the overall score, heck, your OP (before the edit) was just a 2 sentence job saying how awesome Phenom was. :rolleyes:

If all along your intent was to show how the weighting of the CPU score has changed from 3DMark 06 then you took a while to actually get your point across. I haven't actually examined the weighting system much (I'm not a hardcore 3Dmark bencher :p:), if you have such data please provide it. :up:

---

Yep, I really like edits, it allows me to point out the following which you fail to mention in your post :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perkam

based on YOUR OWN numbers, the Q6600 was ahead by 7% in 3dMark 06 and is now only ahead by 2.5% in 3DMark Vantage. Ty for helping my argument out . (Remember that a 200 point difference to a 3000 pt score is 7% of the score, while a 200 point different to an 8000 point score is much smaller)

---

:) Be back in a few.

Perkam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

Yep, I really like edits, it allows me to point out the following which you fail to mention in your post :)

:) Be back in a few.

Perkam

---

Again, I'll remind you that your OP mentioned nothing regarding the overall score, or the weight system in 3DMark Vantage. You simply linked to a chart that showed Phenom getting dominated pretty badly by C2Qs. You are now completely changing the scope of the discussion with your edit.

I do agree that it does appear that the CPU score is less important this time around in determining the 'overall' score, thus making 3DMark Vantage a prodominantly GPU bound benchmark if you exclude the CPU portion of the tests.

3D Mark(any version) means nothing to real world performance. Phenom is as fast as it is, and one pointless synthetic benchmark(for e-penis measurement purposes) can't change the facts!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mAJORD

But a Q9300 has LESS cache than a Q6600. So it aint that :) (3mb vs 4Mb)

It does have larger associativity though, and less latency iirc.

also the FSB is higher.. a possibility

---

Good point :up:

My theory is that 3DMV uses SSE4 for CPU test/tests or most recent PhysiX library is using it. This way we can explain very big difference between Kentsfield and Yorkfield at similar clocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drunner611

How is a 9850 at 3.0ghz getting beat by a 2.5ghz Q9300 showing off Phenom's competitiveness?

Lol, I'll probably get flamed for this, but I'm just pointing out the obvious.

---

I was thinking the same thing. I guess the only way is that 9850 costs less then Q9300, about £20 less.... nope that aint either.

Why wont people just accept Phenom for what it is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syn.

I was thinking the same thing. I guess the only way is that 9850 costs less then Q9300, about £20 less.... nope that aint either.

Why wont people just accept Phenom for what it is?

---

Please stick to the topic and the first post.

The Phenom is a Work in Progress from AMD (the TLB issue proved that) and, as per the content of this thread, gains a slight advantage over previous benchmarks, hence the thread.

Think of it this way, good news is rare for AMD, hence this is rare news :p Every AMD thread in XS News doesn't need members to brand the entire Phenom line useless over and over again. Thankfully we have the vacancies for doing that filled 200 times over.

Perkam

Im still wondering about when you increase the clocks on a q9300 20% how you get more than a 20% increase... lol, it should be the other way around...

2.5ghz to (20%) 3.0 ghz.

10041 pts to (20.6%) 12106:shrug: thats straight line scaling!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

Please stick to the topic and the first post.

---

Just to clarify, do you want to stick to the original first post or the edited one? Just getting a bit confusing.

yeah the 9850 is nice... cheaper than a q6600 and only slightly slower
if your ocing... forget about it... but otherwise, a nice quadcore...

then again who needs a quadcore? :rolleyes:
amd should have focussed on a really nice dualcore cpu instead of a "monolithic" quadcore cpu that is oh so efficient...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

just look at the results, vantage is very cache friendly....

a phenom +0.1 speed increase provides roughly + 250/280 score depending on x3 or x4
same for the q9300-q9450 comparison + 278 points

but going from 7300-8300 @ same speed you increase more then 600 points
so increasing from q6600-q9300 gives you 0.1 speed advantage + 2x cache increase so that explains the big jump.

---

nice analyzing! :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

yeah the 9850 is nice... cheaper than a q6600 and only slightly slower
if your ocing... forget about it... but otherwise, a nice quadcore...

---

Cheaper? You see the 9850 for less than $219?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115017

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103249

Try slower and more expensive. Also poorer overclocking and higher power consumption. How is this better than Prescott?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

Please stick to the topic and the first post.

The Phenom is a Work in Progress from AMD (the TLB issue proved that) and, as per the content of this thread, gains a slight advantage over previous benchmarks, hence the thread.

Think of it this way, good news is rare for AMD, hence this is rare news :p Every AMD thread in XS News doesn't need members to brand the entire Phenom line useless over and over again. Thankfully we have that vacancies for doing that filled 200 times over.

Perkam

---

New life? More like still stone dead. There is no good news here for AMD. Yes, Phenom is a work in progress, and Intel's processors are not? You post on an overclocking website a chart that shows the top bin max overclock Phenom that just came out getting crushed by 40% vs a bottom bin Ye Olde Kentsfield overclock and want people to "stick to the topic" of all the "new life" in Phenom?? What is this, AMDZone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villa1n

Im still wondering about when you increase the clocks on a q9300 20% how you get more than a 20% increase... lol, it should be the other way around...

2.5ghz to (20%) 3.0 ghz.

10041 pts to (20.6%) 12106:shrug: thats straight line scaling!

---

One possible explanation is the FSB overclocking. For some reason the default multi (7.5x) was not used and they used 7x instead, resulting in a higher FSB to clock ratio, which could potentially explain the extra 0.6%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Periander6

Cheaper? You see the 9850 for less than $219?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115017

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103249

Try slower and more expensive. Also poorer overclocking and higher power consumption. How is this better than Prescott?




New life? More like still stone dead. There is no good news here for AMD. Yes, Phenom is a work in progress, and Intel's processors are not? You post on an overclocking website a chart that shows the top bin max overclock Phenom that just came out getting crushed by 40% vs a bottom bin Ye Olde Kentsfield overclock and want people to "stick to the topic" of all the "new life" in Phenom?? What is this, AMDZone?

---

For starters, most phenom 9850s clock to 3ghz, not just the top bin ones, thanks to AMD per core clocking utility and unlocked mutli.

Secondly, I noticed the word vantage did not appear once in your post :) So my advice on sticking to the topic is valid. I am not going to repeat my points on why I believe the Phenom has gained an advantage. Please look it up in previous pages or in the first post and respond accordingly :up:

I am wondering if anyone has a similar chart for the remaining CPU tests in 3DM Vantage. If anyone has seen them pls post them here :up: I am looking forward to more Phenom rigs on the ORB to see how people make use of them :)

I have changed the format and title of the thread, however, as I`m starting to get a bad case of deja vu from the tone of your post ;)

Perkam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

Please stick to the topic and the first post.

The Phenom is a Work in Progress from AMD (the TLB issue proved that) and, as per the content of this thread, gains a slight advantage over previous benchmarks, hence the thread.

Think of it this way, good news is rare for AMD, hence this is rare news :p Every AMD thread in XS News doesn't need members to brand the entire Phenom line useless over and over again. Thankfully we have the vacancies for doing that filled 200 times over.

Perkam

---

I was sticking to the topic you first posted.

All processors are work in progress. If you read any of my posts or if you just read my signature you would know that i am not against Phenom. Its just that this thread seemed as if someone invented hot water and then decided to tell the whole world about it, if you get what i mean. Currently with B3's a Phenom is a very decent CPU the only problem here being is that currently it is not decent enough because Intel released something that performs better before hand. As you know one thing that has been proven many times over, especially in XS News, is that Phenom is slower clock-per-clock then Core Quad in most cases. So if you really want people to let this pass you should not come out with threads that say "aha but now take a look this..." and reopen the discussion that people are mostly annoyed of reading these days.

So my point is this. Phenom is a good cpu to have, just because its not best is not the end of the world it will still run all my applications and games without any problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

For starters, most phenom 9850s clock to 3ghz, not just the top bin ones, thanks to AMD per core clocking utility and unlocked mutli.

---

Phenom 9850 *is* a top bin CPU, do you not understand the concept of CPU binning?

Anyway, I think you should take it easy with your uber edits, it takes the discussion COMPLETELY out of context.

wow, the 9850 at stock is faster than the e8500@ 3.8ghz by a huge amount.
well, that makes sense, the e8500 just costs $20 more...
intel's high end dual core cpu's are the biggest rip off, intel's low end quad cores are the best value.

Pointless fanboyism. How's this. I don't give a :banana::banana::banana::banana: either way. Both companies suck. I want 10 GHz on stock cooling. Wake me up when that gets here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

wow, the 9850 at stock is faster than the e8500@ 3.8ghz by a huge amount.
well, that makes sense, the e8500 just costs $20 more...
intel's high end dual core cpu's are the biggest rip off, intel's low end quad cores are the best value.

---

If 3DMark is your life... :rolleyes:

There are plenty of instances where a higher clocked dual core can outperform a lower clocked quad:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2282399,00.asp

How does 8 cores do? :)

3DMarketing could be renamed as CPUMarketing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

One possible explanation is the FSB overclocking. For some reason the default multi (7.5x) was not used and they used 7x instead, resulting in a higher FSB to clock ratio, which could potentially explain the extra 0.6%.

---

true, i guess the bandwidth would be opened up from 333, to 400+ they needed.
was it ddr2 for both, or ddr2 and ddr3? .. not really clear or didnt see a link to the test beds, which could make a big diff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stocius

Pointless fanboyism. How's this. I don't give a :banana::banana::banana::banana: either way. Both companies suck. I want 10 GHz on stock cooling. Wake me up when that gets here.

---

I'm so agreeing with this post and quoting it for that reason :p

And no, I dont think I actually need a quad core yet anyway. Maybe by the time 12 core CPU's are released, games will start being written to take advantage of 4 cores :rofl: :ROTF: :rofl: :ROTF: :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

yeah the 9850 is nice... cheaper than a q6600 and only slightly slower
if your ocing... forget about it... but otherwise, a nice quadcore...

then again who needs a quadcore? :rolleyes:
amd should have focussed on a really nice dualcore cpu instead of a "monolithic" quadcore cpu that is oh so efficient...

---

http://computers.pricegrabber.com/pr...9850/st=query/

http://computers.pricegrabber.com/pr...6600/st=query/

Actually, they are about the same, the Q6600 looks to be a bit less on average.... just taking the lowest three prices from pricegrabber

Q6600: 219, 220(219.99), 226 (225.99)
9850 : 235, 236(235.99), 236(235.99)
(As of 4/30/08)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perkam

For starters, most phenom 9850s clock to 3ghz, not just the top bin ones, thanks to AMD per core clocking utility and unlocked mutli.

Perkam

---

Perkam... the 9850 is AMD's top bin ... they don't bin out anything faster. EDIT: At the moment, 2.6G will arrive later per their roadmap.

penryn breathes new life into specweb2005

Top scores (In parenthesis - subtests scores: Banking(SSL) / Ecommerce(partially SSL) / Support (non-SSL))


HP ProLiant DL580 G5, 4S/16C/16T, Intel Xeon X7350, 2930 MHz, 64GB, 58 HDs, RHEL5, Accoria Rock Web Server v1.4.6 - 40046 (71104/55552/36032)
Sun SPARC Enterprise T5220, 1S/8C/64T, Sun UltraSPARC T2, 1400 MHz, 64GB, 50 HDs, Solaris 10, Sun Java[TM] System Web Server 7.0 Update 2 - 37001 (63000/49500/36000)

HP ProLiant DL385 G5, 2S/8C/8T, AMD Opteron 2356, 2300 MHz, 32GB, 51 HDs, RHEL5, Accoria Rock Web Server, v1.4.6 - 30007 (50856/46020/25584)

HP ProLiant DL380 G5, 2S/8C/8T, Intel Xeon X5460, 3166 MHz, 32GB, 58 HDs, RHEL5, Accoria Rock Web Server, v1.4.6 - 29591 (51840/46512/23816)


Look at those Intel chips rock and finally position them selfs as a strong alternative to AMD in high bandwidth applications.

I realize this post will provoke strong debate because Intel actually fairs quite poorly but that does not matter as I can always edit my first post. After all I am just trying to prove that I can not have a positive Intel thread without AMD fans hijacking it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallag

penryn breathes new life into specweb2005

Top scores (In parenthesis - subtests scores: Banking(SSL) / Ecommerce(partially SSL) / Support (non-SSL))


HP ProLiant DL580 G5, 4S/16C/16T, Intel Xeon X7350, 2930 MHz, 64GB, 58 HDs, RHEL5, Accoria Rock Web Server v1.4.6 - 40046 (71104/55552/36032)
Sun SPARC Enterprise T5220, 1S/8C/64T, Sun UltraSPARC T2, 1400 MHz, 64GB, 50 HDs, Solaris 10, Sun Java[TM] System Web Server 7.0 Update 2 - 37001 (63000/49500/36000)

HP ProLiant DL385 G5, 2S/8C/8T, AMD Opteron 2356, 2300 MHz, 32GB, 51 HDs, RHEL5, Accoria Rock Web Server, v1.4.6 - 30007 (50856/46020/25584)

HP ProLiant DL380 G5, 2S/8C/8T, Intel Xeon X5460, 3166 MHz, 32GB, 58 HDs, RHEL5, Accoria Rock Web Server, v1.4.6 - 29591 (51840/46512/23816)


Look at those Intel chips rock and finally position them selfs as a strong alternative to AMD in high bandwidth applications.

I realize this post will provoke strong debate because Intel actually fairs quite poorly but that does not matter as I can always edit my first post. After all I am just trying to prove that I can not have a positive Intel thread without AMD fans hijacking it.

---

this isnt really related to this thread at all, i think you meant to post in the spec web thread....

also.. its total bait. the intel server there is clocked 800mhz more.. and still underperforms... this is not their forte yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villa1n

this isnt really related to this thread at all, i think you meant to post in the spec web thread....

also.. its total bait. the intel server there is clocked 800mhz more.. and still underperforms... this is not their forte yet.

---

I guess sarcasm doesn't convey well over the Internet huh? ;)

they dont bother to post a high clocked E8500 or 8400...:down:

I should read entire posts before i quote.
On topic it looks indeed like 3dmark vanage is using SSE4. Anyone care to run it through a decompiler?

I just wish games used a similiar code so there would be some reason to grab a quad.

I want a Pentium quad.