More Core i7 trichannel "failure" from "thiefs"

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-66...s-SMT-OFF.html

Another conclusion of trichannel is a failure. Its originally made by pconline.cn.

And another epic failure in translation. And not only this, xtreview also publish it as their own.

You can see the original screens by techpowerup that tho gave credit to pconline. But also failed translation.

http://www.techpowerup.com/73680/Cor..._Let-down.html

How many people does it need to do basic chinese translation :rofl:

But just sad to see actually. Its all some copy/paste babelfish journalism.

I call BS on his numbers and you know me well enough that I wouldn't say that lightly.

No picture of system, no good scores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

I call BS on his numbers and you know me well enough that I wouldn't say that lightly.

---

Most numbers are right. However understanding of the numbers is the issue :ROTF:

People think loading times is frames per second etc.

Quote:

---

However, the appearance of the third memory channel created an additional problems.

---

Running chinese through babelfish is a hard one already. And then randomly guessing charts is even worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Most numbers are right. However understanding of the numbers is the issue :ROTF:

People think loading times is frames per second etc.



Running chinese through babelfish is a hard one already. And then randomly guessing charts is even worse.

---

Not according to what I see with my own eyes but for the sake of peace on the forum I will stay out of this thread from now on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Not according to what I see with my own eyes but for the sake of peace on the forum I will stay out of this thread from now on.

---

Well, from what I've gathered in a couple of weeks there will be plenty of real world information (which I'm eagerly awaiting) available on the subject, so I have to concur.

No need to start something now, when we are so close to seeing the veil fall...

Besides, you're one whose words can be taken at face value :)

20.5K Everest Read

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GedUuXD20CA

I'm not surprised :(

You think babelfish can translate any non-alphabetic language easily? It has trouble moving from english to french due to lost context.

Way too early to ever think you can assimilate the complexities of chinese into english.

Cant see the point of this thread. You have said several times that it isn't translated correctly, how is this news? The issue was about tri-channel doesn't have any advantage over dual-channel.

the ironic thing about this recycled set of results was that they tested various #s of memory channels (1-3) in single thread and few-thread (gaming) benchmarks, where obviously triple channel DDR3 is massive memory bandwidth overkill

then, in benchmarks that will actually stress out 8 threads and show performance improvements with triple channel mem they don't test different #s of memory channels

it's like getting a 4 drive SAS RAID 0 and stating it's a waste because it doesn't improve your spi time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-66...s-SMT-OFF.html

Another conclusion of trichannel is a failure. Its originally made by pconline.cn.

And another epic failure in translation. And not only this, xtreview also publish it as their own.

You can see the original screens by techpowerup that tho gave credit to pconline. But also failed translation.

http://www.techpowerup.com/73680/Cor..._Let-down.html

How many people does it need to do basic chinese translation :rofl:

But just sad to see actually. Its all some copy/paste babelfish journalism.

---

One more dude using a proto from last year ... duh! since then, we had 10 versions of the memory controler micro code ... without counting the sub versions ...

booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

those results seem fine... theres no big boost going from dual to tri channel... intel never said it would...
dual imc is still way faster than dual MCH... so while going to tri channel wont give you a big boost, having the memory controller integrated helps mem bandwidth a lot.
how much that bandwidth helps the cpu to get higher scores is a different storry though... that depends on the cpu and application...

same for smt, in some apps it doesnt help, in some it does... it depends a lot on what apps you actually run.
unfortunately there are very very very very few desktop apps that can make use of more than 4 threads

games really do not really need high memory bandwidth, for gamers it wont be a big upgrade, but for people that need pure cpu and memory power, its a huge upgrade.

One can always elect to use these new CPU's using single or dual channel if they choose for their particular setup and how they want their system to run using the apps they use most.

The difference here is when you do need it, it's there. With a CPU that *only* runs in single or dual you don't have the option of going to triple, so in reality triple channel is not hurting anything...you only have bandwidth to gain, and we all know if you sit still long enough, you will end up obsolete. There are already programs that do take advantage of this, and it's been repeated ad nauseum on here but people just aren't listening.

There will be more and more multithreaded apps. The games are already there. Graphics design work, video work, and various engineering programs will take full advantage of this, and I will be using those types of programs heavily, and have been waiting on a CPU like this for years...literally years. I even put off a build of a 775 based quadcore rig for over a year now to wait on this as soon as I leaned about this CPU and some of its advantages.

If multithreaded apps aren't a reason, then does anyone want to go back to a P4? If you’re only using single threaded apps, then there's no reason for multicore rigs, and all this dual channel stuff right? Wanna go back to a Willamette? No HT?

C'mon now, surely people here realize this technology is here to stay, and will be around for a long time. I'm building one of these because I'm not going to build another for at ***least*** another 3 years, and it will probably be more like 5. I'm not gonna be in the shape I'm in now where I settled for an obsolete 478 system back when 775 was just around the corner. I did that and have regretted it ever since. I was stuck with a socket that has no future, and watched as others were popping in new CPU's while I was getting more and more obsolete until I got into the situation I'm in now...not being able to run multithreaded apps worth a damn. Even with my high OC this thing is painfully slow at encoding...so slow I have videos piled up that need to be encoded and have put them off so long it will take me months after I get my new system to get caught back up.

I also have some programs I cannot even use because the flow runs would be a slideshow providing the program didn't just hard lock the system.

That extra memory is already useful. It's just that many of these articles only have one thing on the brain...games. These computers are not just game boxes. They are used for real work...work that pays for these expensive toys we play with. Without that work they'd be nothing more than glorified consoles.

We also already know that this CPU is a folding beast. I'll be willing to bet money, people are gonna be stunned when the *real* info gets released after the NDA is lifted. The "meat and potatoes" hasn't been released yet, because it's under NDA. Anything else at this point is just filler.

The only thing I'm waiting on is how much is this stuff gonna cost, and where can I get it. Unless it's cost prohibitive it's bought. There is no doubt that this thing will outperform anything to date. We've seen enough to know that now. There are even benches in the benching forum showing that.

I cannot wait to get started encoding my videos so I can immortalize them on digital media. I'm worried that something may happen to them, and the stuff I have on there is irreplaceable.

I'm also semi-retired, but want to start doing some design work again and *need* this kind of computing power.

There is actually an important gain in Mem Bandwidth when going from 2 to 3 Dimms, if you don t see it, you have old hardware, Sandra will show it for sure.

Francois

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T_Flight

One can always elect to use these new CPU's using single or dual channel if they choose for their particular setup and how they want their system to run using the apps they use most.

The difference here is when you do need it, it's there. With a CPU that *only* runs in single or dual you don't have the option of going to triple, so in reality triple channel is not hurting anything...you only have bandwidth to gain, and we all know if you sit still long enough, you will end up obsolete. There are already programs that do take advantage of this, and it's been repeated ad nauseum on here but people just aren't listening.

There will be more and more multithreaded apps. The games are already there. Graphics design work, video work, and various engineering programs will take full advantage of this, and I will be using those types of programs heavily, and have been waiting on a CPU like this for years...literally years. I even put off a build of a 775 based quadcore rig for over a year now to wait on this as soon as I leaned about this CPU and some of its advantages.

If multithreaded apps aren't a reason, then does anyone want to go back to a P4? If you’re only using single threaded apps, then there's no reason for multicore rigs, and all this dual channel stuff right? Wanna go back to a Willamette? No HT?

C'mon now, surely people here realize this technology is here to stay, and will be around for a long time. I'm building one of these because I'm not going to build another for at ***least*** another 3 years, and it will probably be more like 5. I'm not gonna be in the shape I'm in now where I settled for an obsolete 478 system back when 775 was just around the corner. I did that and have regretted it ever since. I was stuck with a socket that has no future, and watched as others were popping in new CPU's while I was getting more and more obsolete until I got into the situation I'm in now...not being able to run multithreaded apps worth a damn. Even with my high OC this thing is painfully slow at encoding...so slow I have videos piled up that need to be encoded and have put them off so long it will take me months after I get my new system to get caught back up.

I also have some programs I cannot even use because the flow runs would be a slideshow providing the program didn't just hard lock the system.

That extra memory is already useful. It's just that many of these articles only have one thing on the brain...games. These computers are not just game boxes. They are used for real work...work that pays for these expensive toys we play with. Without that work they'd be nothing more than glorified consoles.

We also already know that this CPU is a folding beast. I'll be willing to bet money, people are gonna be stunned when the *real* info gets released after the NDA is lifted. The "meat and potatoes" hasn't been released yet, because it's under NDA. Anything else at this point is just filler.

The only thing I'm waiting on is how much is this stuff gonna cost, and where can I get it. Unless it's cost prohibitive it's bought. There is no doubt that this thing will outperform anything to date. We've seen enough to know that now. There are even benches in the benching forum showing that.

I cannot wait to get started encoding my videos so I can immortalize them on digital media. I'm worried that something may happen to them, and the stuff I have on there is irreplaceable.

I'm also semi-retired, but want to start doing some design work again and *need* this kind of computing power.

---

I don't understand your logic. If you need an encoding box so badly why don't you get a cheap Penryn (i.e. SSE4) system and run that dedicated for encoding. Nehalem systems are going to be out of the bang for buck segment until late 2009, the upcoming release is for the early birds willing to pay a premium. For the $500 that you plan to spend on just a CPU you could get a separate box and have it encode 24/7. And a second one for your main work. A 3.6GHz Q9400 wouldn't be much slower than the midrange i7 you plan to get. And with encoding offloaded your aggregate CPU power would be much higher.

The massive premium you'd pay for a $300 mobo + $500 CPU + $200 RAM could basically be used for two 775 systems.

And in 2010 you could once again get a bang for buck i7 system if you really wanted to. The incremental performance gain from enthusiast systems is not really worth it if your tasks are splittable imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Not according to what I see with my own eyes but for the sake of peace on the forum I will stay out of this thread from now on.

---

A Chinese website compared dual channel s775 vs. tri channel I7.
Among other tests they compared how long games take to load.
So they ended up with lower numbers on I7 than C2Q, because it was seconds and as we all know, less seconds used = better, but some other review sites then just copy pasted, yet failed to realize that the chinese guys where talking about seconds and made fps out of it, which ment that I7 was suddenly looking bad when in fact it was winning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justthefax

I don't understand your logic. If you need an encoding box so badly why don't you get a cheap Penryn (i.e. SSE4) system and run that dedicated for encoding. Nehalem systems are going to be out of the bang for buck segment until late 2009, the upcoming release is for the early birds willing to pay a premium. For the $500 that you plan to spend on just a CPU you could get a separate box and have it encode 24/7. And a second one for your main work. A 3.6GHz Q9400 wouldn't be much slower than the midrange i7 you plan to get. And with encoding offloaded your aggregate CPU power would be much higher.

The massive premium you'd pay for a $300 mobo + $500 CPU + $200 RAM could basically be used for two 775 systems.

And in 2010 you could once again get a bang for buck i7 system if you really wanted to. The incremental performance gain from enthusiast systems is not really worth it if your tasks are splittable imo.

---

Becasue I'm not gonna buy twice. I'm buying one system and that's it. I also want to have the possibility to upgrade a CPU in the future without having to buy another mobo and ram again. One 1366 system will do ti all for me. 2010 is basically a year and 2 months away. I will not be buying any systems for at least 3 years and probably 5 again, so 775 systems are a no go unless I cannot afford a new Bloomfield. If I wanted to build an obsolete system I could've done that a year ago. I chose to wait instead.

The only thing at this point that would force me into a 775 based system would be criminally priced stuff. So far I'm not seeing that happen.

We're also not talking about cheap here. We're talking about Extreme CPU's which in 775 cost more than this Bloomfield will. They are 1400+ on the egg right now and the Bloomfield will be around 1000 dolalrs from what I'm seeing. boards are about the same or what I'm going to spend is about the same for the same level of performance and Overclocking ability, and the ram is slightly higher but not enough to warrant buying technology that is now obsolete. It would cost me more in the end.

waiting for NDA to drop.
Until then, we simply dont know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

There is actually an important gain in Mem Bandwidth when going from 2 to 3 Dimms, if you don t see it, you have old hardware, Sandra will show it for sure.

Francois

---

i am sure of that, and you will see it for sure in memory benchmarking, the big question would be if this is big added value in normal applications....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-66...s-SMT-OFF.html

Another conclusion of trichannel is a failure. Its originally made by pconline.cn.

And another epic failure in translation. And not only this, xtreview also publish it as their own.

You can see the original screens by techpowerup that tho gave credit to pconline. But also failed translation.

http://www.techpowerup.com/73680/Cor..._Let-down.html

How many people does it need to do basic chinese translation :rofl:

But just sad to see actually. Its all some copy/paste babelfish journalism.

---

really nice news post :banana::banana::banana::banana: Shintai...... everybody already concluded in those news posts that the tests were garbage .....0 added value

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

I call BS on his numbers and you know me well enough that I wouldn't say that lightly.

---

yes Movieman we already saw your happy post regarding the new toys.... however the strange part was that OBR with the same NDA and hardware tempered it real fast... so wonder who is happy with synthetic and who is happy with real life

Actually I am quite happy to read that, so do not have to upgrade my C2Ds for a while besides dropping in a pair of C2Q when their prices hit the floor, Intel can keep the bling platform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T_Flight

Becasue I'm not gonna buy twice. I'm buying one system and that's it. I also want to have the possibility to upgrade a CPU in the future without having to buy another mobo and ram again. One 1366 system will do ti all for me. 2010 is basically a year and 2 months away. I will not be buying any systems for at least 3 years and probably 5 again, so 775 systems are a no go unless I cannot afford a new Bloomfield. If I wanted to build an obsolete system I could've done that a year ago. I chose to wait instead.

The only thing at this point that would force me into a 775 based system would be criminally priced stuff. So far I'm not seeing that happen.

We're also not talking about cheap here. We're talking about Extreme CPU's which in 775 cost more than this Bloomfield will. They are 1400+ on the egg right now and the Bloomfield will be around 1000 dolalrs from what I'm seeing. boards are about the same or what I'm going to spend is about the same for the same level of performance and Overclocking ability, and the ram is slightly higher but not enough to warrant buying technology that is now obsolete. It would cost me more in the end.

---

Personally, I wouldn't worry about "buying again". Worst case scenario, you get to re-install windows when you go i7. If you want a basically disposable setup, just use a low end LGA Quad, decent value motherboard, and a few GB of DDR2... or if you want stuff to carry over, get a DDR3 board.

Plus, don't forget that the very fist crop of i7 boards will be, historically speaking, :banana::banana::banana::banana:. They'll have tons of kinks to iron out, will likely be unable to support certain future processors, and hold back memory clocks. Nothing that buying another mobo wouldn't fix, though.

Regarding you having to watch those LGA days roll on by - Socket 775 wasn't just as simple as flip and drop. If you bought in off the start, you would have needed to buy a 955 or higher board to get a dual core to work. Want a core chip? 965/975. Want to do multigpu? P35/P45... It's definately been far from a smooth road, and I've owned MORE than enough motherboards to tell you that.

Besides, if you're going to start doing design work, upgrading your system every "3 to 5 years" really doesn't cut it. If you HAD upgraded a year ago to an entry level quad, a motherboard with AGP, and about 4gb DDR2, you'd have flown through your encoding pile, for about what, $400 total?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T_Flight

......I'm also semi-retired, but want to start doing some design work again and *need* this kind of computing power.

---

Hm if I were you I'd look to either get a dual socket system, or get a second box for rendering or w/e you actually would do with this kind of computing power. I am actually kinda looking forward to release to swoop some cheapish system to use only for rendering, sporting a q9450 or similar. Dunno if I actually need it tho :x. Seems I might be able to use a small renderfarm with 20ish pcs for that :/

Its all about the user tho, I really hope you are happy with the initial release of i7 :). I think I'll wait for the "tick"-stage to jump on the i7 wagon.


PS BTW this wont be faster than an 8core skulltrail for graphics or w/e you are doing :). less expensive tho :)

PS2 Movieman, why do you even care what some random people said on a forum, dont let everything get to ya ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duploxxx

i am sure of that, and you will see it for sure in memory benchmarking, the big question would be if this is big added value in normal applications....




really nice news post :banana::banana::banana::banana: Shintai...... everybody already concluded in those news posts that the tests were garbage .....0 added value




yes Movieman we already saw your happy post regarding the new toys.... however the strange part was that OBR with the same NDA and hardware tempered it real fast... so wonder who is happy with synthetic and who is happy with real life

---

Lets cut to the chase here: Why the hell are you in these threads since your obviously not looking for info but to disrupt the thread and piss on everyone involved?
Your sarcasm towards me and the others here isn't appreciated and to put it bluntly give it a frigging break, we're all sick of it.
Is that plain enough for you?
OBR ran what he thought was relevant and I did the same.
I teased him a little and also made a point about violating the NDA with posted benchmarks but it was civil between he and I.
I also didn't have anywhere near the time to test that he has had so kindly add that into your sarcastic equation.
If I show what you consider to be too much enthusiam then that I'm probably guity of.
I'll let you in on a little secret: I'm having plain old fashioned fun.
Yea, fun and I can tell you that at pushing 57 years of age thats not something you say often. Fun like little kid fun. The wonder of exploration, that kind of fun and if I'm too much for you or you can't handle that then guess what? I don't give a damn.
For months I've watched you piss on Intel threads and I'm sick of it.
Stay the hell out of the Intel threads since you don't have anything positive to add.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

20.5K Everest Read

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GedUuXD20CA

---

And this proves????


20k writes would be impressive...

I think any test showing no gain from tri-channel is going to be wrong.

Intel isn't magic, but they are far from dumb :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

There is actually an important gain in Mem Bandwidth when going from 2 to 3 Dimms, if you don t see it, you have old hardware, Sandra will show it for sure.

Francois

---

Are you absolutely sure? From various sources I've heard (and seen) that the difference in performance between dual and triple channel is close to nothing. Actually, I am not quite sure yet, because the extra channel should be adding much more bandwidth than the 500MB's I've seen (DDR3 @ 933MHz, exact same system settings). It's either Lavalys Everest that screws up, although I'm not likely to believe that, or something in the bios/motherboard design of the Intel reference motherboard is making the triple channel run at dual channel, which also would surprise me.

What are the possible underlying causes that make people report a lack of performance gain going from dual channel to triple channel? Software/hardware?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by massman

Are you absolutely sure? From various sources I've heard (and seen) that the difference in performance between dual and triple channel is close to nothing. Actually, I am not quite sure yet, because the extra channel should be adding much more bandwidth than the 500MB's I've seen (DDR3 @ 933MHz, exact same system settings). It's either Lavalys Everest that screws up, although I'm not likely to believe that, or something in the bios/motherboard design of the Intel reference motherboard is making the triple channel run at dual channel, which also would surprise me.

What are the possible underlying causes that make people report a lack of performance gain going from dual channel to triple channel? Software/hardware?

---

I always said that Core 2 Quad does not need much mem Bandwidth, so, on real application, if memory is not important, you will see very little from Mem Bandwidth.
In the mean time, on application like SETI, Rosetta, folding@home, you got to feed 8 threads, the bandwidth will come handy. If you do H264 with profile level 4, you ll go and see 16 frames in both directions, this will get handy too.

Just remember, to keep 8 threads happy, you ll need the bandwidth, it is just a matter of time before the software use it 100%.
I heard people telling me that nobody will use MMX, it was so hard to use ... Today, you can t boot most of the OS without it.

and yes, I am very sure that 3 Dimms goes faster than 2 Dimms. (on mem test) If it does not, the proto is broken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony

And this proves????


20k writes would be impressive...

---

Too bad it was the 'tria version' :) .... we don't get to see ... but no way is it 20K write.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sly Fox

I think any test showing no gain from tri-channel is going to be wrong.

Intel isn't magic, but they are far from dumb :)

---

Who knows -- Sandra VII did not work right with AMD's split memory controller in Phenom, and memory scores were overall incorrect. It took Sandra VIII to actually report correct numbers for Phenom....

The client market never has had a 192 bit mem bus to the CPU, at least not one that was mainstream/popular. It could be that testing mem BW with today's utilities are only doing single cycle 128 bit read and writes ... so it would not matter if the third stick is there, you will always only see roughly the performance of a 2 stick -- conjecture on my part. However, if I am right -- who is to say Windows or any other App makes good use of the 192 bit channel anyway... it make take some software revisions across the broader market to access the added BW of a 192 bit mem bus.

Or, it just could be that 3 channels is not really needed at all, and the BW measurements are saturated by the speed of the CPU. We will need CPUs in hand to test this thoroughly, and I do not trust 90% of the HW review sites out there to get it right anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

I always said that Core 2 Quad does not need much mem Bandwidth, so, on real application, if memory is not important, you will see very little from Mem Bandwidth.
In the mean time, on application like SETI, Rosetta, folding@home, you got to feed 8 threads, the bandwidth will come handy. If you do H264 with profile level 4, you ll go and see 16 frames in both directions, this will get handy too.

Just remember, to keep 8 threads happy, you ll need the bandwidth, it is just a matter of time before the software use it 100%.
I heard people telling me that nobody will use MMX, it was so hard to use ... Today, you can t boot most of the OS without it.

and yes, I am very sure that 3 Dimms goes faster than 2 Dimms. (on mem test) If it does not, the proto is broken

---

Thanks for the reply.

If I understand correctly, we should all notice the difference between dual and triple channel, but it's very likely that if we use non-multicore applications that the difference will be very small. The bandwidth that is added because of the extra channel is to provide enough bandwidth to fully cover the 8 threads, but is 'overkill' when using in single/dual threaded applications.

Now, that only leaves the everest bandwidth problems. As far as I know, the Lavalys Everest program is quite accurate when it comes to calculating the memory bandwidth and latency, but in tests I've seen the difference still is only 500MB/s:

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s.../XS/testss.jpg

Maybe this is the problem:

Lavalys Everest 4.60 new features & improvements:

- Asus EPU and Gigabyte DES support
- Enhanced hardware monitoring capabilities
- Optimized benchmarks for Intel Atom and VIA Nano
- Preliminary support for Intel Core i7 and X58
- Support for the latest chipset and graphics technologies

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s...-/XS/tests.jpg

Only two tests actually show the difference between dual and triple channel, which probably is the correct performance scaling.

i don't see how it's bad because tri-channel is slightly faster than dual channel i7 in every graph....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaredpace

i don't see how it's bad because tri-channel is slightly faster than dual channel i7 in every graph....

---

its "bad" cause it dont shows the real impact that tri-channle has. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jaredpace

i don't see how it's bad because tri-channel is slightly faster than dual channel i7 in every graph....

---

That's why. Single channel to dual channel made a huge difference when it was introduced on the NF2 platform (1500MB/s -> 1900MB/s = 26% increase) and it still does in memory hungry applications, such as Lavalys Everest. The fact that the difference between the two technologies is so small, makes many of us wonder why it's that low (in the contrary to those who are only out on bashing the technology).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by massman

That's why. Single channel to dual channel made a huge difference when it was introduced on the NF2 platform (1500MB/s -> 1900MB/s = 26% increase) and it still does in memory hungry applications, such as Lavalys Everest. The fact that the difference between the two technologies is so small, makes many of us wonder why it's that low (in the contrary to those who are only out on bashing the technology).

---

maybe it's in the bios settings and no one has yet had long enough time to tune/tweak triple channel yet ?

That's one possibility, although I don't see why anyone should be tweaking the triple channel functionality as it's one of the key features of the new platform. Surely, you'd expect the Intel X58 motherboard to be able to show the correct performance difference between dual and triple channel, no?

There are some newer biosses available on the Intel restricted area website, but there are no changelogs available, so no idea whether the bios updates would help. I hope so, though.

Another weird/funny effect I've seen people reporting is that overclocking the BCLK frequency has little to no effect in performance, which means that running 133x25 or 166x20 will not make any difference. Next to that, people report that underclocking the QPI frequency (lowering the QPI multiplier) has no effect on the BCLK wall, so decreasing the QPI multiplier will not allow people to go high in BCLK frequency? :help: The wall itself would apparently be a CPU issue, not a motherboard problem ... kinda like the FSB wall we know now.

I'm re-reading every PDF on the Intel page at the moment, maybe I missed something.

//EDIT: No, I didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eva2000

maybe it's in the bios settings and no one has yet had long enough time to tune/tweak triple channel yet ?

---

but if general public has to invest serious time to try and gain a bit more performance would it really count for anything

most of these systems....are going to non-tweakers and overclockers alike

tripple channel RAM configuration will also add a new hurdle in overclocking. we've already seen the the recent greek magazine review posted here that tripple channel was giving the guy headaches so he went down to two sticks to be able to get OCs/figures he was after

...having said that i know both of us look forward to the challenge...we love the smell of new silicone and all the head scratching until things start kick some serious arse :D

tripple channel should eventually be able to give us what we need for SuperPi heheh i know how lame some would say but i am pragmatic...if it aint working for SuperPi i call it broken :D.....i cant wait to squeeze CAS, TRCD & TRFC for the first time, feel my first heart race & see the magic unravel :D eeeeek :D

Single channel: 64-bit.
Dual channel: 128-bit. 100 % increase from previous.
Triple channel: 192-bit. 50 % increase from previous.

Now, triple channel would yield half the increase from going from single to dual channel, than in case where the memory bandwidth demand exceeds the max. bandwidth capable with tri channel. No wonder it yields no big differences. :)

Though, TC and tight timings would yield better results than max. bandwidth.

u got it Dino, if it dont play well with spi and 2k1 then :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Single channel: 64-bit.
Dual channel: 128-bit. 100 % increase from previous.
Triple channel: 192-bit. 50 % increase from previous.

Now, triple channel would yield half the increase from going from single to dual channel, than in case where the memory bandwidth demand exceeds the max. bandwidth capable with tri channel. No wonder it yields no big differences. :)

---

Considering the (rougly) 25% increase in memory bandwidth on the NF2 going from single to dual channel, I'd expect to see a 12,5% increase going from dual to triple channel, still much more than Lavalys Everest points to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oliver

u got it Dino, if it dont play well with spi and 2k1 then :D

---

will nehalem even be able to compete with E8600 in '01 :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by massman

Considering the (rougly) 25% increase in memory bandwidth on the NF2 going from single to dual channel, I'd expect to see a 12,5% increase going from dual to triple channel, still much more than Lavalys Everest points to.

---

it could be early bioses as well who knows

but i would definitely NOT trust software like sandra

32M SuperPi is still the best measure....tapakah is showing a 1% difference with same settings.......that is pretty big for Pi so i'll take it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by massman

Considering the (rougly) 25% increase in memory bandwidth on the NF2 going from single to dual channel, I'd expect to see a 12,5% increase going from dual to triple channel, still much more than Lavalys Everest points to.

---

Nvidia 680i gives me almost 100% more bandwidth going from single to dual channel, not sure about Intel chipsets as I have never tested it using Sandra.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by massman

Another weird/funny effect I've seen people reporting is that overclocking the BCLK frequency has little to no effect in performance, which means that running 133x25 or 166x20 will not make any difference.

---

They are so wrong...at least in the tests we ran. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bingo13

They are so wrong...at least in the tests we ran. ;)

---

what tests

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by massman

Considering the (rougly) 25% increase in memory bandwidth on the NF2 going from single to dual channel, I'd expect to see a 12,5% increase going from dual to triple channel, still much more than Lavalys Everest points to.

---

Well, NF2 was back in 2002, 6 years ago. Memory bandwidth demand has increased quite alot from those days, and thus the comparison from NF2 is quite much worthless IMO. Besides, I only saw sub 15 % improvements, though, the RAM was cheap kingston and FSB was sub 166 all the time. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by massman

Thanks for the reply.

If I understand correctly, we should all notice the difference between dual and triple channel, but it's very likely that if we use non-multicore applications that the difference will be very small. The bandwidth that is added because of the extra channel is to provide enough bandwidth to fully cover the 8 threads, but is 'overkill' when using in single/dual threaded applications.

---

What it boils down to is that most of today's client applications do not produce a demand that exceeds even modest memory bandwidths, aided with a strong cache structure. Increase in BW either by clocking up the bus or increasing memory clocks gives minor improvements, in most cases -- some exceptions are WinRAR's internal benchmark which all it does is read/writes random data to memory while executing it's compression engine... it shows significant sensitivty to BW. I have also seen noteable sensitivity with Mainconcepts H264 encoder.

So, in what Dr. Who? is saying, at 12 GB/s + memory bandwidth is not really going to impact what you observe in real life -- not because the BW is not real, but because the applications used for desktop never deman throughput that exceeds the capabilities.

You will see the BW play an important role in 2S servers, where those applications are more throughput oriented as opposed to client side which are really just task based.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by massman

Another weird/funny effect I've seen people reporting is that overclocking the BCLK frequency has little to no effect in performance, which means that running 133x25 or 166x20 will not make any difference. Next to that, people report that underclocking the QPI frequency (lowering the QPI multiplier) has no effect on the BCLK wall, so decreasing the QPI multiplier will not allow people to go high in BCLK frequency? :help: The wall itself would apparently be a CPU issue, not a motherboard problem ... kinda like the FSB wall we know now.

//EDIT: No, I didn't.

---

There is nothing weird or funny about this, pretty much expected. QPI in a single socket desktop is now simply servicing the chipset which acts as nothing more than a multiprotocol network switch, shuttling to different IO standards, USB, SATA, etc. there is not part of this that is critical in the computational equation to performance overall -- the QPI link will service higher BW than any periphrial will yield, hence ... 25.6 GB/sec or 12. GB/sec (lower QPI BW) will have little to no overall effect, considering SATA can do 300 MB/sec... QPI will neither speed up nor slow down a HD transfer, for example.... this is just intuitive.

All this means is that Intel has done a good job making QPI very robust such that it can scale much higher clock if/when needed. Where and what creates the BCLK wall is irrelevant, there will always be a wall with some component, the weakest component of the chain will be the limiter -- this is not surprising ... perhaps it is the CPU NB frequency, who knows ... or it could be QPI, and it simply is before the multiplier... who knows. What we do know is there is a whole new set of fun knobs to turn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

There is nothing weird or funny about this, pretty much expected. QPI in a single socket desktop is now simply servicing the chipset which acts as nothing more than a multiprotocol network switch, shuttling to different IO standards, USB, SATA, etc. there is not part of this that is critical in the computational equation to performance overall -- the QPI link will service higher BW than any periphrial will yield, hence ... 25.6 GB/sec or 12. GB/sec (lower QPI BW) will have little to no overall effect, considering SATA can do 300 MB/sec... QPI will neither speed up nor slow down a HD transfer, for example.... this is just intuitive.

---

USB, SATA, etc. are connected to the ICH10. The ICH10 is connected to X58 via a DMI link. So whatever you plug into any USB or SATA will have the limitation of the DMI link, which is much slower than the QPI. Raising the QPI speed won't make any differencies for pheripherals. You don't need more for that anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

USB, SATA, etc. are connected to the ICH10. The ICH10 is connected to X58 via a DMI link. So whatever you plug into any USB or SATA will have the limitation of the DMI link, which is much slower than the QPI. Raising the QPI speed won't make any differencies for pheripherals. You don't need more for that anyways.

---

True ... I was generalizing, even PCIe does not have BW exceeding the QPI ... nothing you do, regardless to the QPI BW will help, the flow of information will be limited elsewhere. Although, I don't recall the BW for the DMI interface between NB/SB, it is probably faster than USB or firewire.

Same thing with HyperTransport. The link to the NB/SB chipsets are not the rate limiters, hence performance will only be retarded if one supresses the HT BW below the BW of the tested link.

DMI is equivalent to a 4x PCIe IIRC. However Francois, bingo13 and other people have been saying that increasing the QPI speed is good for the platform, but dunno why because as you say it is not the limiting factor and the only thing that a higher QPI link qould speed up would be something connected to the PCIe lanes of X58, i.e. GPUs...

Anybody notice the big jump in latency going to tri-channel? Around 15% worse latency

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by massman

Thanks for the reply.

If I understand correctly, we should all notice the difference between dual and triple channel, but it's very likely that if we use non-multicore applications that the difference will be very small. The bandwidth that is added because of the extra channel is to provide enough bandwidth to fully cover the 8 threads, but is 'overkill' when using in single/dual threaded applications.

Now, that only leaves the everest bandwidth problems. As far as I know, the Lavalys Everest program is quite accurate when it comes to calculating the memory bandwidth and latency, but in tests I've seen the difference still is only 500MB/s:

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s.../XS/testss.jpg


Only two tests actually show the difference between dual and triple channel, which probably is the correct performance scaling.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

...
For months I've watched you piss on Intel threads and I'm sick of it.
Stay the hell out of the Intel threads since you don't have anything positive to add.

---

Wow, I got serious deja vu reading this. It's like AMD threads and -------! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justthefax

Anybody notice the big jump in latency going to tri-channel? Around 15% worse latency

---

And if you look, his timings have changed ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justthefax

Anybody notice the big jump in latency going to tri-channel? Around 15% worse latency

---

The clocks and settings of the memory aint the same either.

Plus we dont know the BIOS version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justthefax

Anybody notice the big jump in latency going to tri-channel? Around 15% worse latency

---

Yeah, huge.... trichannel has a whole 25 ns of latency... how terrible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

DMI is equivalent to a 4x PCIe IIRC. However Francois, bingo13 and other people have been saying that increasing the QPI speed is good for the platform, but dunno why because as you say it is not the limiting factor and the only thing that a higher QPI link qould speed up would be something connected to the PCIe lanes of X58, i.e. GPUs...

---

Well, I cannot be 100% truly certain until I get a CPU I can experiment with myself and see what others do with it. However, I have run numerous HT frequency scaling experiments and it amounts to a hill of nothing in terms of impacting perforamance.

I cannot see QPI being any different. In server, yeah, huge deal... on desktop.... irrelevant. But I could be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by massman

Thanks for the reply.

If I understand correctly, we should all notice the difference between dual and triple channel, but it's very likely that if we use non-multicore applications that the difference will be very small. The bandwidth that is added because of the extra channel is to provide enough bandwidth to fully cover the 8 threads, but is 'overkill' when using in single/dual threaded applications.

Now, that only leaves the everest bandwidth problems. As far as I know, the Lavalys Everest program is quite accurate when it comes to calculating the memory bandwidth and latency, but in tests I've seen the difference still is only 500MB/s:

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s.../XS/testss.jpg

---

Why is the CPU 22MHz faster for the dual-channel benchmark and 11MHz faster on the memory than the triple-channel benchmark?



http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-66...s-SMT-OFF.html
http://xtreview.com/images/corei712and3chanel06.png

and also, shouldn't the dual-channel benchmark pwn the single much more than this?

The crysis is loading times. Most of the restriction is HD based.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justthefax

Anybody notice the big jump in latency going to tri-channel? Around 15% worse latency

---

Actually, the problem is not the hardware here, it is the software, I have my friend Ronen working with the everest guys, I am not sure of the status, but I know from sure that the processor affinities does not allow the max bandwith to be always measured properly.

I will check and update you guys later, Monday.

In the mean time, this 2 numbers shows that Core i7 is the 1st having a real integrated memory controler .. :rofl: (kidding! don t shoot!)

If you use Sandra, you will see that Banwidth is better with 3.

Francois

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

Yeah, huge.... trichannel has a whole 25 ns of latency... how terrible.

---

hehe indeed only 230% faster then a current top of the line C2D. :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

The crysis is loading times. Most of the restriction is HD based.

---

Isn't it amazing how often those pconline numbers get recycled? :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dinos22

it could be early bioses as well who knows

but i would definitely NOT trust software like sandra

32M SuperPi is still the best measure....tapakah is showing a 1% difference with same settings.......that is pretty big for Pi so i'll take it

---

I'd trust Lavalys/Sandra more than Superpi, to be honest, especially when you want to put a number on the performance scaling of brand new technology. Superpi is good if you want to compare technology you understand, not really that good if you don't know the technology by heart.

Bios release is a possibility, but I can't understand why Intel would send out motherboards that don't feature the benefits of triple channel right away. This is one of the KEY features of the X58/Nehalem platform, it wouldn't make any sense.

In addition, even if the bios isn't ready, why would Intel keep this information internal? They know people will focus on this features, why on earth would they choose for the path that leads to bad publicity when different reviewing websites claim triple channel just doesn't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metroid

Nvidia 680i gives me almost 100% more bandwidth going from single to dual channel, not sure about Intel chipsets as I have never tested it using Sandra.

---

Different settings, different results. All I know is that the results of the triple channel that we see now is way too low to be correct. And if they are correct ... :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bingo13

They are so wrong...at least in the tests we ran. ;)

---

Just got the QPI performance scaling confirmed by another source, so I wonder what tests you ran ;-).

This makes me certain that I'll need a setup myself to test everything out. Why oh why did I pass for the Madshrimps Nehalem coverage ...:p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Well, NF2 was back in 2002, 6 years ago. Memory bandwidth demand has increased quite alot from those days, and thus the comparison from NF2 is quite much worthless IMO. Besides, I only saw sub 15 % improvements, though, the RAM was cheap kingston and FSB was sub 166 all the time. :)

---

Actually, I was comparing with NF2, because that's when I first experienced the benefit of dual channel, just like the Core I7 is the first platform that uses triple channel.

I was running 260+ FSB, maybe not such a fair comparison.

To be honest, I should re-read some reviews to draw a decent conclusion, but I think you get my point when I show you the table with 0% improvement going from dual to triple channel. In the past we always DID notice the bandwidth increasements, 'we' as in the (extreme) overclockers. The fact that we are NOT noticing them at the moment is a sign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JumpingJack

What it boils down to is that most of today's client applications do not produce a demand that exceeds even modest memory bandwidths, aided with a strong cache structure. Increase in BW either by clocking up the bus or increasing memory clocks gives minor improvements, in most cases -- some exceptions are WinRAR's internal benchmark which all it does is read/writes random data to memory while executing it's compression engine... it shows significant sensitivty to BW. I have also seen noteable sensitivity with Mainconcepts H264 encoder.

So, in what Dr. Who? is saying, at 12 GB/s + memory bandwidth is not really going to impact what you observe in real life -- not because the BW is not real, but because the applications used for desktop never deman throughput that exceeds the capabilities.

You will see the BW play an important role in 2S servers, where those applications are more throughput oriented as opposed to client side which are really just task based.

---

In real-life applications, I don't even worry about dual channel. You're not going to notice anything when opening Internet Explorer or Word, but you will notice when you run resource hungry programs such as video encoding or data compression programs. But isn't the Core I7 / X58 platform designed for the normal end-user? I don't see why you bring up the 2S server example, because it has nothing to do with dual/triple channel working or not.

My question is why we don't see any improvement in benchmarks, which very often extrapolate the differences in performance. When we see differences in benchmark utilities, we can be sure (or not) if technology is working, even at 12GB/s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuDioFreaK39

Why is the CPU 22MHz faster for the dual-channel benchmark and 11MHz faster on the memory than the triple-channel benchmark?

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-66...s-SMT-OFF.html
http://xtreview.com/images/corei712and3chanel06.png

and also, shouldn't the dual-channel benchmark pwn the single much more than this?

---

No idea why they are not clocked exactly the same, not my benchmarks anyway. The small difference in frequency is NOT the reason why the differences in performance are this small, though ;-).

And yeah, the xtreview benchmarks are screwed, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

The crysis is loading times. Most of the restriction is HD based.

---

Seriously? I don't really find that a propper way to compare hardware, although these are more real-life measurements than raw numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

Actually, the problem is not the hardware here, it is the software, I have my friend Ronen working with the everest guys, I am not sure of the status, but I know from sure that the processor affinities does not allow the max bandwith to be always measured properly.

---

Good, let's hope the preliminary support gets turned into full support sooner than later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by massman

I'd trust Lavalys/Sandra more than Superpi, to be honest, especially when you want to put a number on the performance scaling of brand new technology. Superpi is good if you want to compare technology you understand, not really that good if you don't know the technology by heart.

Bios release is a possibility, but I can't understand why Intel would send out motherboards that don't feature the benefits of triple channel right away. This is one of the KEY features of the X58/Nehalem platform, it wouldn't make any sense.

In addition, even if the bios isn't ready, why would Intel keep this information internal? They know people will focus on this features, why on earth would they choose for the path that leads to bad publicity when different reviewing websites claim triple channel just doesn't work.



Different settings, different results. All I know is that the results of the triple channel that we see now is way too low to be correct. And if they are correct ... :shakes:



Just got the QPI performance scaling confirmed by another source, so I wonder what tests you ran ;-).

This makes me certain that I'll need a setup myself to test everything out. Why oh why did I pass for the Madshrimps Nehalem coverage ...:p:



Actually, I was comparing with NF2, because that's when I first experienced the benefit of dual channel, just like the Core I7 is the first platform that uses triple channel.

I was running 260+ FSB, maybe not such a fair comparison.

To be honest, I should re-read some reviews to draw a decent conclusion, but I think you get my point when I show you the table with 0% improvement going from dual to triple channel. In the past we always DID notice the bandwidth increasements, 'we' as in the (extreme) overclockers. The fact that we are NOT noticing them at the moment is a sign.



In real-life applications, I don't even worry about dual channel. You're not going to notice anything when opening Internet Explorer or Word, but you will notice when you run resource hungry programs such as video encoding or data compression programs. But isn't the Core I7 / X58 platform designed for the normal end-user? I don't see why you bring up the 2S server example, because it has nothing to do with dual/triple channel working or not.

My question is why we don't see any improvement in benchmarks, which very often extrapolate the differences in performance. When we see differences in benchmark utilities, we can be sure (or not) if technology is working, even at 12GB/s.



No idea why they are not clocked exactly the same, not my benchmarks anyway. The small difference in frequency is NOT the reason why the differences in performance are this small, though ;-).

And yeah, the xtreview benchmarks are screwed, I think.

---

You got a very valid point, only the people with access to the official press kit can access to the lastest BIOS, this one has a very important patch for the memory controler. If you use a prototype of Smackover, without this bios (version has to be superior of 2000), you are not optimum :)
For other motherboard maker, make sure you get the latest BIOS released this week.

Hehe, at the moment I was reading your reply, a good friend (who's finishing up his review) told me he updated his bios to the latest version and indeed noticed the increase in bandwidth when using sandra: single-9G, dual-16G and triple-20G (stock 965, 1333 7-7-7-18). Close to no difference in real-life apps, though :(.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by massman

Seriously? I don't really find that a propper way to compare hardware, although these are more real-life measurements than raw numbers.

---

Yes, seriously. xtreview just stole the numbers and posted it as their own. (And thereby completely skipping all explanations).

But as said, you can read it yourself.

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/08-10-13/35d.jpg

Also a note that this aint benched on the newest versions to say it mildly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by massman

Hehe, at the moment I was reading your reply, a good friend (who's finishing up his review) told me he updated his bios to the latest version and indeed noticed the increase in bandwidth when using sandra: single-9G, dual-16G and triple-20G (stock 965, 1400 7-7-7-18). Close to no difference in real-life apps, though :(.

---

This prove one thing ... I was not lieing to you guys when I was telling you that memory controler on dice was not making a big difference for AMD ... ;)

Now, mainstream will have around 20 G/s, that means, programmers will start using it.
Take a look at the speed of Power Director, and you ll see a difference :yepp:

ok, so, after checking, here is the answer from the architect himself (Ronak).

Everest is not threaded for the memory test, I verified with a Skulltrail 4.0Ghz and a Nehalem Big time OC, and both of them use 25% of the CPU during the test.
Memory bandwidth is so great in Nehalem that you need more than a single threaded test to measure fully the memory bandwidth.

Please use sandra for the time being, Everest will catch up soon I think.

Francois Piednoel
Intel Corp.

Thanks for finding out the details for us!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

ok, so, after checking, here is the answer from the architect himself (Ronak).

Everest is not threaded for the memory test, I verified with a Skulltrail 4.0Ghz and a Nehalem Big time OC, and both of them use 25% of the CPU during the test.
Memory bandwidth is so great in Nehalem that you need more than a single threaded test to measure fully the memory bandwidth.

Please use sandra for the time being, Everest will catch up soon I think.

Francois Piednoel
Intel Corp.

---

Thanks for that bit of info :)

why the more channels are used, the loading times get worse ? (as in that crysis test)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loque

why the more channels are used, the loading times get worse ? (as in that crysis test)

---

Check with Sandra, you ll see that it does not have this problem either , Sandra knows nehalem, but everest does not.
We changed the way you are suppose to measure few thinks, due to the changes in frequency added in the turbo mode.
measuring frequency for example became more complexe, because the power controle unit is changing it very fast on the fly, and cores go to powersaving fast.

Everest is very close to the metal, because if this, it needs some adjustment.

For Frequency, you can trust CPUz 1.48

For Crysis well, the numbers look right to me ... more channel is faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loque

why the more channels are used, the loading times get worse ? (as in that crysis test)

---

lol wut?

loading time gest faster.... singel -> ~30secs, dual -> 26secs, tripple 24secs....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

lol wut?

loading time gest faster.... singel -> ~30secs, dual -> 26secs, tripple 24secs....

---

oh snap nvm, must not post at 2:50 am :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

ok, so, after checking, here is the answer from the architect himself (Ronak).

Everest is not threaded for the memory test, I verified with a Skulltrail 4.0Ghz and a Nehalem Big time OC, and both of them use 25% of the CPU during the test.
Memory bandwidth is so great in Nehalem that you need more than a single threaded test to measure fully the memory bandwidth.

Please use sandra for the time being, Everest will catch up soon I think.

Francois Piednoel
Intel Corp.

---

SiSoftware (Sandra) is working on patch also, while their bandwidth numbers are showing about a 40% increase over Everest due to threading optimizations, their latency numbers are almost double what Everest is reporting right now (which I understand Everest is correct in this case) . The latency test in Sandra 2009 puts the X58 about even with the NForce 3. ;)

It is a damned if you do, dammed if you don't situation right now when it comes to reporting memory subsystem results without using an actual application. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loque

oh snap nvm, must not post at 2:50 am :p:

---

:) :) ... I know the feeling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Lets cut to the chase here: Why the hell are you in these threads since your obviously not looking for info but to disrupt the thread and piss on everyone involved?
Your sarcasm towards me and the others here isn't appreciated and to put it bluntly give it a frigging break, we're all sick of it.
Is that plain enough for you?
OBR ran what he thought was relevant and I did the same.
I teased him a little and also made a point about violating the NDA with posted benchmarks but it was civil between he and I.
I also didn't have anywhere near the time to test that he has had so kindly add that into your sarcastic equation.
If I show what you consider to be too much enthusiam then that I'm probably guity of.
I'll let you in on a little secret: I'm having plain old fashioned fun.
Yea, fun and I can tell you that at pushing 57 years of age thats not something you say often. Fun like little kid fun. The wonder of exploration, that kind of fun and if I'm too much for you or you can't handle that then guess what? I don't give a damn.
For months I've watched you piss on Intel threads and I'm sick of it.
Stay the hell out of the Intel threads since you don't have anything positive to add.

---

OOOOOPS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Esau

OOOOOPS

---

The point that movieman was making that it is ok to look for anomalies, but you got to do it with style.
it is ok to show up with issues, and ask for solution, what he did not like is the "sarcasm" part.

Let's try to elevate the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drwho?

The point that movieman was making that it is ok to look for anomalies, but you got to do it with style.
it is ok to show up with issues, and ask for solution, what he did not like is the "sarcasm" part.

Let's try to elevate the debate.

---

Thank you. Unfortunately my heritage is Irish and it does pop up at times.
What bothers me the most at this forum and at I imagine others is that many people have lost the ability to just plain simply enjoy the hardware no matter who made it.
To all;
Both AMD and Intel have had their day in the sun to shine with their products.
AMD's X2's and Opterons were great products in their day.
Today it's Intels day in the sun and people should just accept that for what it is.
It seems to me that some people just can't get that simple thought into their minds but when you look at this from a rational point of view and realise that most of these people here are fairly intelligent you wonder if it's not that they don't get it but that they don't want to get it.
They've married their "being" to one company and refuse to see that another company may just have trumped the "one they love"
That to me is a closed mind and by doing so they miss so much.
Enjoy what is and not what was or might have been.
That's living in an unrealistic world and to be blunt, deluding yourself.

Arrows is expensive! Send in the irish...they cost nothing! :rofl:

It gonna be fun when Everest and such is patched for i7 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

Arrows is expensive! Send in the irish...they cost nothing! :rofl:

It gonna be fun when Everest and such is patched for i7 :)

---

bastage!:rofl:
See what happens when you mix a Dane with a Mick?
Perpetual war followed by a very long drunk!:ROTF:

I have very similar scores ...

Dual versus Tri channel on Core i7 = very similar performance ... in Everest, but this app is odd

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s...an-/triple.png

Test setup details over at OCX