Printable View
http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=3721
Looks like K10.5 is about 12% faster than (my) K10 in Super Pi, with a 1m time of 25.109s at 2.8GHz compared to my 9850BE's time of 28.110s at 2.8GHz, with the same HT speed (1.8GHz), same memory speed (DDR2 800) and similar timings as the Deneb ES, though my NB speed is 2.0GHz, compared to the Deneb's 1.8GHz.
nice to see 3ghz 45nm cores from amd :)
http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/1247/deneblx8.png
Are these still power hungry though? The 65nm phenoms didnt compare very well against their g0 counterparts. I wonder how these compare against yorkfields.
1) site doesn't work. seems to be down?
2) if cpu-z is reporting the core voltage accurately, lol.
3) L3 cache was bumped from 2mb to 6?! maybe that explains the performance increase. hmm...
nice to see Deneb it gets faster, but will it be fast enough against nehalem?
also i seconed ghosts comment, powerdraw would be nice to know.
I doubt it gives any performance in SuperPI.Quote:
Originally Posted by breakfromyou
Really, wish they ditched the K8 arch and created something new. Now they need to do it anyway, as it seems that K8 is dead and buried, and has been neraly 2 years or so.
Even though they had Superior Arch compared to C2D, they would still be behind due to the manufacturing process. Lower yeilds and higher costs, more power hunggry chips etc.
They can't compete in performance. They can't compete in manufacturing costs. They can't compete in TDP. What can they really do, other than wish Nehalem to fail and delay big time and Bulldozer to be a huge success? :shrug:
L3 cache size should NOT improve performance on super pi.
They probably improved the L2/L3 latency, the core could have some faster workarounds, etc.
Nice to see AMD's 45nm CPU, even tough it is too late to really compete with Intel.
This is some good news for AMD. But it's way to late, Phenom should've released like this at the beginning of this year.
This is a pleasant surprise. Didn't think we'll see Deneb ES so soon. I hope that the TDP is low, prices likewise, and that there will be a 3 GHz SKU.
Almost new AMD 1M WR ;)
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9476/deneb34ka3.png
I wonder how many pipelines it has. If there were able to shorten them and keep the same or higher clockage then ;)
it is new, K10 is nothing like K8 really and this respin is new again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Intel core 2, based on P3, everyone loves that though ;) Nahelem yes its totally new but thats just really a move towards what AMD are doing but much faster.
This is just awesome ! i hope they really lowered latencys on l2/ l3
Nice chip there. Now we have to wonder if retail chips are this fast/good.
Although SPi ain't the benchmark to show performance on AMD processors it's still nice to see 3.4GHz run.
If Deneb outpeforms my current Yorkfield processor and overclocks well, I'll pick one up at the end of the year rather than getting a Nehalem based system. I figure I'll wait till Nehalem is on the "tock" phase ;)
The link doesn't work for me. :( It'd be nice if anyone can re-host and post the pictures.
Anyway, it is nice to see ES floating around. That means the release date is not too far away.
The L3 size improves the performance in Super Pi for sure, but I doubt that 12% are delivered from the L3 size alone. Since I can't open the page I wonder what is the NB & L3 frequency. I hope for more benches soon.
It has 3 pipelines, just like Agena. As for the pipeline length I'm pretty sure it is same as on Agena, 12/18 ALU/FPU stages.Quote:
Originally Posted by nfm
Shortening the pipeline requires serious and complex architectural redesign(which is very unlikely to happen on a brand new process). It will make a lot of troubles to the engineers and I doubt it'll make any benefit since K10 relatively has a short pipeline(compared to Core2 and Nehalem). What K10 needs is higher core, L3 and NB clocks, lower cache latencies, wider cache and some architectural improvements.Quote:
If there were able to shorten them and keep the same or higher clockage then ;)
Thanks for these results. Was totally not expecting any. :up:
Looking at Phenom development with the SB750, I have my hopes up for Deneb overclocking to the >3.5Ghz range for daily use. Just hoping that power consumption will be low to finally make it an easy, viable alternative to Core.
Then there's only the bad image to fight, I mean who cares about 15% extra performance if the price is right, when GPU or HDD are bottlenecking your system almost exclusively (exclude benchers and crunchers here). If youre lacking 15% performance and at the same time pulling 50w extra it's a whole different scenario though.
Nehalem is a different ballpark. When mainstream Nehalem enters AMD will have to do something good or accept defeat.
This is great news. I look forward to seeing how the chips develop.
Nice results sofar. A guess would maybe be corespeed L3? The async nature is a major culpit on 65nm K10s.
Well, isn't P3 based on P2 anyway? And P2 is based on Pentium Pro which is based on original Pentium? Larrabee having multiple smaller cores which are very alike to original Pentium cores?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
So whats the problem with AMD, if not the architecture? Too low yields? Too high costs? Too bad fab process? Whatever it is, it's killing AMD. :|
The FIFO is there to stay, w/o it you'd need major reworking and BIOS flashes all the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
First post- Deneb 1.8Ghz Agena 2Ghz
They should've improved the logic of L2 and L3- my best guess, the 65nm versions are subpar compared to C2. Now they might actually have something in the vicinity, hampered by their execution units and prefetch.
You will be required to flash your BIOS anyway. Else it wont even start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
With that view on it, everything is based of the previous then. In short, they are all just improved 4004. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
CPU-z is reporting NB speed as 1800Mhz on one of the SPi runs
Looks good so far... very pleased to see those clocks...!
Maybe AMD engineers little tweaked K10 core with load ahead of store and they finally done right with OoO load execution.Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
Acutally it has 2 pipelines. One integer, and one floating point with separate schedulers for integer/memory and floating point pipeline. These pipelines has 12 stages for integer and 17 stages for floating point.Quote:
It has 3 pipelines, just like Agena. As for the pipeline length I'm pretty sure it is same as on Agena, 12/18 ALU/FPU stages.
K10 has 3 integer units, 3 AGU units and 3 FP units.
Core 2 has also 3 128-bit wide FPU ,3 ALU and 2 AGU units, but it can decode up to 4 instructions per clock, usually 3 arithmetic + one memory, because Intel PR machinery says that they have 4-way CPU, and other guys haven't. :d
I can't tell how much impact on performance has 4-way decoder on Core 2, but I am sure in that the main reason for good performance is good prefetch in combination with big L2 cache. Also, low latency L2, inclusive architecture, good branch predictor and high associativity L1 may bring few percent of performance.
I agree with that, but it also needs better prefetch. When CPU needs data from memory IPC factor drops significantly. With better prefetch algorithms CPU can access data from L1, L2 or L3 without that significant performance drop. If CPU hasn't that smart algorithms IMC or better IMC can't help there.Quote:
What K10 needs is higher core, L3 and NB clocks, lower cache latencies, wider cache and some architectural improvements.
http://www.tcmagazine.com/images/new...m_Deneb_02.jpg
time of production: somewhere between April 14. and 18.!!!
Wasn't Shintai that wrote somewhere that AMD wil not be out with 45nm CPUs before middle of 2009?
Maybe he meant for consumers.....? :shrug:
Interesting! Keeping my eye on this one...
But I said 2009!!1111 :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by NightCrawler™
Yes, usually some 9months+ from this stage to release. Making a few 100 chips is one thing, making millions is another.
But the chip currently look as a better improvement than expected.
I wonder if there's a few more tweaks they can get in? Or are we basically seeing production silicon here? Looks good. Let's just hope AMD can stay afloat long enough to release these. :up:
Nice clocks and too high voltages for 45nm. Stepping 0 that is.
If C0 can clock to 3.4Ghz already... *gasp*
Well, Agena did improve about 400-600Mhz on "peak" OC, but we need SB750 to really know how far the 65nms will peak.
These should be DVT samples at this point. The results look very good but i'd like to see some real benchmarks. I disagree that prefetch is a problem for AMD though.
Only if they can keep the power consumption down. Doesn't really help to have a C2Q killer when the chip needs 200W from the board. :shrug:
I hope they get rid of that silly phenom name.
because that name isn't doing them anything good
power consumption should go down from the 45nm process.
I'm getting one of these, unless they announce Shanghai for desktops.
Yes, but how much ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Kayin
results look pretty good so far, with any luck these will come out sooner rather than later and we get a semblance of competition in the cpu sector.
Pretty much this. We cant for sure call Agena bad clockers 'yet'. I mean, testing OC's of a CPU with a bad register in your RAM isnt a smart thing either in the end, guess that's a good enough comparison with the SB600 problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Anyway, this was the last thing I expected to see today, Deneb. I like it, although as stated before I hope the Vcore can go down just a little bit more when OC'd:p:.
However, I see opportunities to get that Super PI score quite a bit better actually. I mean, they only ran it with DDR800 with 5-5-5 timings and 1.8Ghz NB. Both parts can be tweaked better, a lot actually.
About the competition against Nehalem, well, I dont think it would beat Nehalem either. But we also have to keep in mind that Nehalem LGA1366 is aimed at enthusiasts and doesnt come cheap. 'Mainstream Nehalem' (what's it named again:shocked:) thingy comes quite a bit later, Q3'09 IIRC?... If AMD gets things sorted now and get Deneb running well I think we might see it competing against the mainstream Nehalem.
I mean, they've like 9 months to observe Deneb from launch and if needed launch a revision. Eventually again with a few price adjustments to keep it competitive, but better than they're standing now though.
But well, time will tell. I just hope this isnt like a cherry picked Deneb though but just one out of a bunch picked randomly. And this Deneb is actually clocked on SB600 too. Maybe it's one of these not so picky motherboards. I hope they retest it on a SB750:yepp:
New AMD WR has been made :D.
The dudes who brought us these pictures from itocp.com did it :
http://www.itocp.com/redirect.php?ti...tpost#lastpost
All it was needed is 3484Mhz on Deneb to break it.Cooling was AIR.
New 45nm Phenoms are still not recognized properly so they show up as 9850.Quote:
1M 00min19.969sec Ivanqu & Sunny
AMD Phenom 9850 3484.32 1.56 TeamXtreem 6400 536 2.5 4-4-4-8
L
Air
The score is exactly 12.5% better clock/clock than tweaked Agena core (MILANS did the next best K10 result,took him 3621Mhz,with tweaked L3@2.1Ghz and low latency ddr2 to get 21.625s score).
Usually when you have fewer pipeline stages, you tend to clock the CPU clock much slower to get performance similar to an architecture with more pipeline stages and a faster clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by nfm
i dont think power consumption well go down by a lot without using high-kQuote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Kayin
It needs high-k indeed. Wasn't AMD doing something like that with IBM? If it was, wasn't it for 32nm though? Or are they implementing it to 45nm?
i thought they were implementing it in a second generation of 45nm, forgot the codename, but if you search you will find plenty of info i thinkQuote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Hmm at 2.8GHz the chip still requires only 1.225V that looks abit better than 3.44GHz at 1.57V
I thought I read about DVT samples being available a few months ago?Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
someone willing to explain the differences between the prefetchers of AMD and Intel?Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
Over paying for ATI is what killing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
No at this point getting ATI was a good move because there gonna dominate the gpu industry thanks to price/performance.
hell then get a 16way L1 cache with 16 256 bit SSE1,2,3,4 preclock precore. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by drfedja
buying ATI did cost them too much money indeed, but it was needed to buy ATI, for platfrom, CPU+GPU and all other stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
The loss AMD is making is basicly because of their bad CPU business, they may have lost some money on ATI, but that is no excuse for all their failures
Damn, it beat the K8 heavily as well there:eek:. w00t:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
oddly enough on my phenom anything past 2.5ghz on the nb/L3 operating speed does nothing for any test or benchmark.
at what CPU speed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggy McShades
It utterly destroyed K8 in SPi :D.Around ~17.5% faster than K8.Deneb brought us a lot more than Agena did in this particular test.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
So all they needed was 3.48Ghz to break a WR that needed almost 4Ghz 65nm K10 chip to do it :D.
Being an ES still means this is not quite "tweaked" from BIOS perspective.Par this thing up with upcoming SB750 motherboard and 2 4870X2 card,what you get is all-amd-uber-system :).K10.5 is starting to look a lot like RV770 ;).
well Wiggy McShadesQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
that is odd I get a boost with my north bridge up 200mhz I get about 5-7% faster.
I just hope they fixed the power consumption on these procs
Everyone complains about the power consumption but considering that my opteron 165 drank almost 180W at 2.8GHz, 4 cores at 2.6GHz and 140W doesn't sound that bad :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Morais
OK all joking aside, yes it would be nice. I'm curious as to how much it uses and how warm it runs.
Yepp, real software is where AMD will also look better. I lost faith in most synthetic stuff a long time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeZzZu
Hmm ok i see a trend here,regarding some of the comments.
AMD shows a significant improvement in a such a poor "benchmark" as SPi is,and now most people complain about TDP,even though this is C0 stepping,not the production one.
IF AMD showed zero IPC increase,even in poor SPi, BUT lower volts at those clocks we've seen,i bet most of the people that complained about TDP/power consumption would switch over to a no-IPC improvement argument.
My point is,which ever way you look at some of the comments,AMD just can't do right in some people's minds :rolleyes:
What we have here is an ES(C0 stepp.),a DVT sample back from April,that is around 12% faster in one poor synthetic benchmark(but thankfully we know that even in this one there is a great IPC increase),that clocks better than any 65nm Phenom and does this on a SB600 motherboard.All probably done on a beta BIOS and with low NB/L3 clocks.
Yeah it does look good for a beginning for sure. I am very interested to see how this all plays out.
yeah it's great results thought, id like to see how much that cpu has tdp rateQuote:
Originally Posted by informal
it really doesnt matter for me, but id like to see below 100w, if it get like 65w tdp... deneb really delivers then. with sub 200 euros price it would be superb in my opinion.
Yes yes we know that intel does better at superpi than AMD, they always have. But superpi is not a good indication of performance between the two. The only thing it is good for IMO is getting a little bit of an idea how a CPU compares to its predecessors, in the same company. Cross company comparison is not valid. Great example is P4 vs K8, P4 was faster in superpi but lost overall compared to K8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
You think this is bad, You want to check out some of the "not happy" comments in the nehlam thread. A lot worse.
Here are a few, This one in particular is funny considering you are jizzing over AMD pi scores
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Hypocrite much? Perhaps instead of wondering why people are not jumping up and down with excitement and posting only positive things about 45nm phenom you should ask yourself why you where so negative in the nehlem thread?
Maybe because Deneb was supposed to be a shrink of 65nm Phenom while Nehalem is a whole new uarchitecture?Think before posting.Yeah.Thanks.
BTW,Nehalem in MT is a beast,this is not a question.
I didn't think he was being hypocritical at all, and was pretty much spot on with his comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Dont change the argument:), You got annoyed because people where not singing and dancing about these results and where questioning how they could bring any negative comment into it and I was just pointing out that every comment you made in the Intel thread was negative. Simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Change the argument?Evading much now?Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
The point is that Nehalem is a whole new uarch. while Deneb was supposed to be just a shrink.I never "jizzed" over SPI scores as you put it,i even said it's a lame benchmark.
BTW my comments are not negative in Nehalem thread.You are from N. Ireland,right?You speak English?Read my comments again and point where i was wrong?Boinc benchmark tool showed us some amazing score so i questioned them and said we need a real world ppd not a tool to bench HT.
Crysis was also there so i found a techarp database and looked at scores C2Qs put out,whats wrong with that??
The only really exciting score i saw was the Vantage CPU score which is really amazing.All other questions i asked were valid.And remember it was the op in the Nehalem thread(JC) that said "far from your expectations" for some of the results,not me.Is he a hypocrite?
Deneb *is* basically a shrink. Some very minor tweaks, and the larger L3 cache. It's the bigger L3 which is responsible for the sPi improvement over Phenom at the same clock. 1M sPi has an 8MB footprint, right? So now 3/4's of it fits in cache vs 1/4 on Phenom. That probably explains just about the entire speedup right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
i am still not impressed with AMD here. the power consumption and heat with the vcore's being used is still going to be sky high. and the performance will still be behind Kentsfield clock per clock not to mention yorksfield and what lies beyond. they need an extra 20% boost to get up to competitive levels of performance clock per clock with intel and even if they got that far they still can't over clock. ohhh 500mhz overclock big whoop. my Q6600 can do a 1.5ghz overclock. so my Q6600 for $210 can do 3.9ghz on air and be faster clock per clock and this may not even hit those speeds on LN2 and will be more expensive.
i agree that it is good for them to be making progress but they are still hurting in performance.
Guys, guys, take it easy. We all know that SuperPi is Intel bench. Even in Netburst vs K7/K8 times netburst could outperform AMD in SuperPi, but in other benches/realtime applications netburst was way behind. So even with this AMD improvement in SuperPi, if we compare to equal 65nm Agena, Deneb shows major improvement. Compared to 3.6Ghz very tweaked Agena platform, Deneb is still way faster. So if AMD brings out new SB and Deneb BEFORE LGA1160 platform, they can earn some sweet bucks and get back in business. And as we know only thing that basically held back Agena OC is HTT overclocking and skyhigh power consumption and load for power phases. 45nm will solve this, so i believe 4GHz is achievable with Deneb.
Intel needs this move from AMD, we need this move, whole IT industry need this move. As fast as AMD will make very competitive product for mainstream, as fast Intel will reply with Lynnfield. And we need some healthy competition, right?
Real simple friend, You got upset because people where pointing out something negative about the power consumption, Which is the same as just asking a question about it. You on the other hand had several questions to ask in the intel thread that seemed like you where trying to find a fault. Do you see what I am getting at?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
This is the last ill hijack this thread, I just thought it was funny you were crying about someone pointing out the power consumption yet it was ok for you to point out anything you thought to be poor in the intel thread.
emm.. noob question.. but what the heck is DVT
@gallag
It's called C0 DVT sample.D V T sample.Not production model.TDP will not be the same as C1.
Question i asked in Nehalem thread had nothing to do with power consumption of Nehalem(since it's also not the retail but ES),it had to do with results of the tests.Also Nehalem is on a platform that is not quite finished yet(single channel etc.) so the results could be even better than what we saw.
No you didn't hijack the thread and yes i had fun time :).
But, Nehalem isn't a whole new uArch. It's built off the Core2 Micro arch with a modular design that allows them to change certain parts of the die as needed. Biggest step forward is the IMC, which is mainly going to be a boost on memory intensive tasks. Or in the server arena tasks that were limited by FSB. The other big step is the reintroduction of hyperthreading. The other thing they did was make their cache system inclusive instead of exclusive like AMD. But they did that to get around the smaller L2 cache size, to better utilize the L3 cache.
Really what it will do is allow Intel to catch up on the server side, where AMD has a performance lead. If Shanghai manages to pull enough of an improvement over Barcelona, then AMD will still be in the game in that market. And, AMD only needs to improve about 10-15% clock per clock to compete with Penryn. Phenom Agena is only about 9% slower clock per clock than Conroe on average.
:( didn't know that sorryQuote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
dunno if those temp readings are right, 37c' idling @ 3.4 ghz + is pretty impressive with air cooling.
I'm quite sure those where EVT samples. Way to early for DVT.Quote:
Originally Posted by ryboto
Prefetching is tied to the cache structure so they are quite different. One important difference is that K10 also prefetches directly to the L1. This is a very detailed article on Phenoms memory subsystem. http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/...ma-phenom.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by GoThr3k
Design Validation Test. Mostly bug free samples used to validate the platform.Quote:
Originally Posted by saveus222
I think that's unlikely. We don't even get accurate temps from Agena procs afaik.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeZzZu
If the retail version can reach 4 GHz under water reliably, i think i'll comeback to AMD camp, unless Intel makes a serious price cut over Yorkfield high multi chip.
Not going to happen, sorry. Best you can hope for is around 3.5 GHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursindonesia
3.4GHz ES sample not bad :D
Kentsfield is on average about 10% faster than Phenom clock-for-clock. Yorkefield adds like 6% more performance to that, so around 16%. The new 45nm Deneb is supposed to be 15% faster than Phenom, so it should be a little faster than Kentsfield and about equal in performance to Yorkfield.
Power consumption will not match that of Intel 45nm CPUs, because Intel uses HighK-MG while AMD doesn't (yet). AMD expects power consumption to be 15% lower on Deneb, which is not that great but still helps.
Phenom is in many cases cache starved, 2MB of shared L3 cache is too small, and Deneb should do much better with 3x more L3 cache. Now I really hope AMD will be able to clock the NB higher than 2GHz with Deneb, as every 200MHz increase should give a 2-3% increase in performance. Doesn't seem like much, but when you have a Deneb running at 3.2GHz for both CPU and NB, the difference will be very noticeable :yepp:
Sweet! You made my day!:up:!Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandwidth
I don't think the nb/L3 clocking is really that important I've run them 1:1 on my phenom and its no faster than when its not. The higher the cpu speed gets the nb and l3 speed need to increase also but it seems like as long as you keep no larger than a 400mhz disparity in clock speed between the two then you aren't missing out on performance(doesn't totally work that way in memory benches. I'm speaking in respect to the Crysis benchmark and 3dmark). What we don't know is what if the three times larger L3 cache will have a larger effect from clocking it higher.
I have the perfect smiley for this stuff that gallag brought up: http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...yhijacked2.gif
If you have a personal beef with someone, take it to PM, not turn a thread into a personal arguement.
Hipno650, glad your q6600 hits 3.9GHz (curious,is that 100% stable?), I wish mine did. But IIRC that isn't a common, guaranteed OC. Mine is only 100% stable at 3.45GHz for example. Roughly a 1GHz overclock. I got that same 1GHz boost out of my old opteron 165. Also, on the volts and power, remember this is not the final chip but a test sample. I'm not saying I know what the final specs will be, I don't, but I would imagine that they will be different than we see here as this is a first run.
If you check the xbitlabs link here They tested with 1.8GHz and 2GHz NB, the gain was 1% on average, only 0.7% for Crysis, but 2.8% for Winrar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggy McShades
Here we are talking about 2MB L3 cache, and gaining 1% performance per 200MHz increase in NB speed. So maybe as you said for 6MB cache the difference boost will be higher, that's how I assumed 2-3% gain in Deneb's case.
You know something just does not seem right with the Phenom NB, whatever it is, I hope it gets tweaked/fixed in Deneb.
AMD Carnage 10000. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Trunks
I'll buy it at high prize :DQuote:
Originally Posted by clayton
http://www.contactnet.ro/imgs/pozerev/PaulOtellini.jpg
"No No No, AMD does not have the first native 45nm Quad, we do. It's right here ahh.......Errr....ummm...Look !! There's a Nehalem !!"
:p: This is good stuff. But probability of cherry-picking is high without other corroborating results.
Perkam
How about DEVASTATOR 3500Quote:
Originally Posted by clayton
I'd buy it regardless of performance of price. It would be great to have a processor with such a brutal name.
Damn, I go away a few hours and mis these stupid posts:ROTF:.
TBH dead simple, I hardly can spot a negative part in these posts from informal... There's still that difference between 'AMD sucks' or 'my Intel brainfarts this way' posting in AMD threads are just being a little bit disappointed by the results thus far from an overhyped wannabe expensive platform.
I wouldnt mind people saying they're disappointed by Deneb's performance, although it has to be fundamented well enough. But since K10.5 > K8 pretty much, there's hardly anything to complain about unless AMD will charge 1K$ for their top CPU again.
Also the posts before stating that AMD wouldnt even reach a 10% IPC on Deneb while it shows 12%+ already on an ES. Yerrr:rofl:...
More I hang out, more I spot unproven statements posted in such a way to make the poster look smart and very well informed. Oh well, saw enough of that to know what people not to take seriously at all;).
lol still bringing this "native" marketing crap. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
With all due respect achieving such a speedup in a canned benchmark rarely translates to real world performance, a point I'm sure you appreciate. As terrace215 suggests the increase could purely be due to the larger cache, taking what amounts to pre-lunch hype at face value usually leads to dissapointment. The superpi figures are interesting but without more system level test results, proclaiming AMD IS BACK!!! at this point is premature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
Not quite convinced this will be true ... I ran this just a bit and posted at Aces' so will put it here, a 2.5 GHz Yorky:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandwidth
http://www.xcpus.com/gallery/d/6847-..._5_SP1M_R1.JPG
Nonetheless, deneb is looking much better overall ... SP1M is not a good indicator of the relative between the two, and this 'leaked' info is much better than what we saw pre-Barcey/Agena where nothing in the wild got shown.
Overall positive results for AMD...
jack
I think thats great about 12.5%, means they could get more possible since it's only C0 stepping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
Yes, Dirk himself was asked if there were any major core improvements, and said no. A few tweaks, and a larger L3. So if you choose a benchmark that is quite sensitive to cache size, you're going to see some improvement, but you can't extrapolate this improvement to the "average application". I'd guess the larger L3 & other tweaks might bring 5-7% clock/clock improvement on avg, but we'll have to wait for more benchmarks to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by _Lone_Wolf_
12.5% on superPi is outstanding, since amd sucks at it anyways:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by demonkevy666
im sure we'l see greater performance increases in other apps in which amd usually scales better:yepp:
and abt relative performance compared to yorkies, i assume they will be within 5% the performance of em..
which is great news, but if only amd can clock these up to 3.2 which is seemingly improbable at the start
im sure this was cherry picked however, hve seen lots of the cherry picked 65nm k10s clocking great and raising my hopes and then seeing the retail oc`s makes me disappointed again. i hope not tho