Printable View
Spec_power benchmarks turns up and it looks like shanghai is much more efficient then harpertown.
Disclaimer: AMD submitted the results for the Intel machine so....it may be have an effect on the results. :rolleyes: Let the number spinning commence.;)
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ghai-benchmark
where's the comparison of Barcelona ?
why the amd rigs only run 2 instances and intels 4?
why are the amd rings using a 500W PSU and the intel a 700W, especial when max consumpton is only 13W appart?
even the inq noticed this... :shakes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
It's seems as a common practice with all the systems based on Xeons(maybe because of the MCM nature of the design).
Anyhow,the compared systems should use same amount of memory(16GB for example).Quote:
Each JVM instance was affinitized to a pair of cores.
Performance wise Shanghai is very strong in this test(pure bench numbers: 2P Sh@ 2.7Ghz scores 338K),while power draw could be a bit better i suppose.Still these are very early submissions.
This is where analyzing power efficiency numbers can be tough. AMD is going to do what any company will do to promote a product. They configured their system, then configured the Intel system in a similar matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Intel's Achilles heal is FBDIMMs, any power efficiency in the CPU is lost in the memory. If you scan through all the other benchmarks, there are intel systems scoring 1000+ but do not utilized 16 Gigs of 8 sticks of 2 Gigs apiece. So take the AMD submission with a grain of salt.
But Informal made the right observation -- the full load ssj_ops for Shanghai vs equivalently clocked Harpertown is higher, even in cases of 2 instant JVMs ... unfortunately, since there is no Barcelona SpecPower benchmark submitted, it is not possible to validate 20% claims ... but the raw performance showing against Harpertown is impressive. i.e. http://www.spec.org/power_ssj2008/re...519-00056.html
It would appear a 2.7 GHz Shanghai in two sockets is about the same as a 3.0 GHz Harpertown.
Yep,good post Jack.That Harper system is using a lot power though,20% more,while performing on par with 2.7Ghz Sh. Memory config. is comparable(4x4GB).
What AMD could do is use single socket systems(will there be any available soon?) and post very high scores(for single socket) with low power draw.This way they can boost the "overall" score a lot,but with a lot less ssj_ops.
I have to say though, that 2P downwards isn't their forte.
Sure, Shanghai IS going to get bought a LOT simply because it is a great slot in upgrade without the need for any platform changes or validation, but sooner or later Gainestown will come and probably make quite a nice lead even clock for clock (power wise I have doubts though, since Nehalem's process was more oriented towards an initial high "flatrate" and later lower voltage required for raising clocks)
4P will be a serious fightback, since Beckton is slow as usual. :)
Yeah ... I am always beating my head against a wall when people argue about power efficiency ... it is very problematic, there is not set standard how to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Sure SpecPower is a start, but even this has massive problems, and is too 'tunnel - visioned', loading it down in just one scenario.
One major problem is that power efficiency is a 2 vector metric, a small change in the denominator can lead to huge swings in the result ... I think a better way of enunciating the metric would be to normalize the power (the denominator) with costs or total energy consumed over a typical usage.
So a processor consumes 10% less power, 10% less power translates into what costs savings in the long run vs a processor that runs faster but uses 10% more though get's to idle quicker...
It is just to convoluted to be of any good really.
you can never compare all these results, therefore the overall clasification is too wide for own creations... and there are lots of other benchmarks done with other psu and 2-4 threadsQuote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
for example:
Intel Corp. Super Micro Computer, Inc. Supermicro 6025B-TR+ (Intel Xeon processor E5345) BEA JRockit(R) 1.6.0_02 (build P27.4.0-10-90053-1.6.0_02-20071009-1827-windows-x86_64, compiled mode) 2 419 Text HTML
Intel Corp. Super Micro Computer, Inc. Supermicro 6025B-TR+ (Intel Xeon processor E5345) BEA JRockit(R) 1.6.0_02 (build P27.4.0-10-90053-1.6.0_02-20071009-1827-windows-x86_64, compiled mode) 4 435 Text HTML
the difference in idle and load is the same, more or less 60Watts, both work with 4 dimms so its not only the fbdimm consuming the difference, still looks like powerdraw on shanghai improved a lot as long as they stay under certain frequency.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
It looks like at 2.7ghz the shanghai uses 264W with a perf to power ratio of 860, while the harpertown running at 2.66ghz uses only 161W with a perf to power ratio of 1284. What's going on with shanghais power numbers?
that's the difference between a Low voltage cpu with lower bus speed etc and a normal cpu... if you check the ssj_ops they are also way lower then the E5472 and the 2384 but the power is also difference, btw it has only 2 fbdimms, so you can already add +10 more watts when stressed for the ram.Quote:
Originally Posted by qurious63ss
When I red the title I though I'm going to see some numbers from an individual. But it's coming from AMD it self...I'd rather believe in the opposite of what they claim.
Last time AMD also claimed K10 was 40 and 50% faster than Core 2. Plus this coupled with theinq. And being spec numbers. No thanks..
And funny to see the Intel system by AMD scoring so low compared to what others archieve.
Sounds like a rerun of the Barcelona...
Shintai,AMD "Configured" system (the intel based one) is not under performing in pure performance,it is on par with other results.What is different is the power draw since the systems are equipped with the same amount of RAM memory(16GB).
In pure performance,like Jack said,Shanghai @2.7Ghz is on the level of Harpertown at 3GHz,in 2P.In 4P it should be even greater difference,but we have no data for that yet.
Performance in what scenario? What would it be like for video encoding and 3d rendering? Or maybe even things like games? It may be like that for certain performance figures, but I don't think this will really apply to most users here. I mean, what do those Spec numbers mean to the average user here?Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
If you haven't noticed,we are all speaking about server workloads here,not desktop.Shanghai is a server part,after all... As for desktop,we simply don't know what kind of perf. over even Agena new 45nm chip will offer.We simply have to wait a bit longer to see.What it will bring to desktop for sure is 3 things: higher stock clocks-2.8/3Ghz in Dec,much lower power draw and much higher OCing.These 3 factors are equally important as IPC is,so Deneb if priced right will be a very good desktop chip.Oh and you can guess even now it's not going to be slower than Agena...Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
Quite interesting.
However, I'd rather take those results not too serious. Both from Shanghai as Harpertown. Marketing is most of the times playing a big role in such 'previews' made my the producer its self.
But well, not too long before we can see some real benchies:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Not much serverload there.Quote:
The initial benchmark addresses only one subset of server workloads: the performance of server side Java. It exercises the CPUs, caches, memory hierarchy and the scalability of shared memory processors (SMPs) as well as the implementations of the JVM (Java Virtual Machine), JIT (Just-In-Time) compiler, garbage collection, threads and some aspects of the operating system.
http://www.spec.org/power_ssj2008/re...r_ssj2008.html
And funny how the AMD Intel system doesnt match the others.
No wonder they been so quiet about the 45nm K10s. Nothing to see.
Now I wouldnt say that either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
I cant remember, but they said with Barcelona I think it was 40% faster than, dont know what. In a lot of benches it actually wasnt, but in one certain it actually was. Now it's not really good to say it's upto 40% faster, but it ain't a lie neither.
I do hope this time AMD did it better than that, and I do think Shanghai/Deneb is a very good improvement from their current products, but as well compared to Intel's offers. How good, we'll have to see untill unbiased reviews are around.
this = shenanigansQuote:
Intel chips certainly seem to be the big winners as far as this particular benchmark is concerned, with Power Leader running Chipzilla’s L5430 Xeons and scoring 1135. IBM also pulls two very high scores from its hat with Intel’s Xeon X3360 2.83GHz (1064, 1054), while NEC also posts a high score of 1010 on a Xeon L5420 2.5GHz.
But there’s also something a bit suspect going on in these benchmarks, something which makes us think AMD might be up to some shenanigans.
AMD submitted its own results for Intel Xeon L5420s at 2.5GHz and somehow managed to come up with a score of only 561.
You act like this is the first time you see this happening?Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
Nothing new here really:rolleyes:
interesting, I wonder how legit this numbers are compared to the average server system if what amd says is true (granted we have to take some of it with a grain of salt)
Yet they use different amount of instances.Quote:
· Each server uses the same JVM version
· Each server uses the same JVM command-line options
And still so different from anyone else....sure!
And since when is a normal server configuration 16GB? Plus you would most likely use 4x4GB and not 8x2GB.
I put this along the 40% faster and 3Ghz Phenoms.
They didnt learn from it last time it seems.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G_n3wv...eature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R7EZmY...eature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6ipfxI...eature=related
Well, regardless of how these scores are made or submitted, anytime a company does a coca cola vs pepsi test by configuring the competitors system themselves one should induce a degree of skepticism ... AMD often does this, I can only recall Intel doing their own AMD configuration compare and I nearly unhinged my jaw in disbelief -- i.e. not the result but rather -- rarely does Intel even acknowledge publicly AMD performance or even existence, but Conroe/Woodcrest filled the IDF and the Intel benchmark website with AMD comparisons.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollo
So when Intel did the Conroe coca cola v pepsi demo, the entire conglomerate (HW journalists, forum enthusiasts, and the like) were all 'take it with a grain of salt.' ... I think it more prudent to weigh the numbers accordingly, note the interesting performance (not performance/watt, just raw performance), then wait for SPEC database to fill with more independent submissions with more configurations.
Bottom line -- Shanghai is shaping up much better than Barcelona did ... forget the AMD sponsored comparison all together.
These are purely server related tasks, the applicability of these type of measurements are completely irrelevant for client side applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
For servers, AMD has done a good job with Shanghai looking at the raw performance and not performance/watt ... AMD's superior interconnect platform over the archaic front side bus is huge advantage, they don't choke up as they add more and more cores and sockets ... hence, they claim to fame with scaling. In single socket desktop PCs the rules are completely different, Deneb will shed a lot of light on what they managed to complete with architectural tweaks during the shrink ... that should follow Shanghai shortly.
there are lots of benches on that site with different amount of instances. off course when you think its convenient for your narrowed view you bring it up, well it isn't:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Intel Corp. Super Micro Computer, Inc. Supermicro 6025B-TR+ (Intel Xeon processor E5345) BEA JRockit(R) 1.6.0_02 (build P27.4.0-10-90053-1.6.0_02-20071009-1827-windows-x86_64, compiled mode) 2 419 Text HTML
Intel Corp. Super Micro Computer, Inc. Supermicro 6025B-TR+ (Intel Xeon processor E5345) BEA JRockit(R) 1.6.0_02 (build P27.4.0-10-90053-1.6.0_02-20071009-1827-windows-x86_64, compiled mode) 4 435 Text HTML
:welcome: to the world, the days of 32bit and less then 4gb ram are over...but perhaps for some it takes some time to evolve.
choosing between 4 times 4 or 8 times 2 is 25% difference in ram price. :D lots of reasons since only minor amount will ever upgrade memory.
Why are you posting 65nm Xeon numbers? And cant we agree that if you are so honest and clearly. You would bench it all with the same settings. Yet they didnt.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
And did you even notice the 2 numbers you posted are on different confs? Both memory amount and speed.
Tell me how many servers that need more than 2 or 4GB. Besides DB servers.
Not even to talk about 16GB vs 8.
You didnt instantly throw 16GB memory in your desktop either did you with x64?
how many servers that need speed are NOT database servers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Plenty. Considering the poor AV and other things out there like layer 7 firewalls. Loaded AD servers etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
But ofcourse. The majority doesnt need eitehr of the 2. Performance is in higher need than memory tho.
I found this info interesting:
Courtesy of Johan De Gelas :rolleyes:Quote:
That reassured us that our transaction log disk was not a bottleneck. On a "normal" SLES 10 SP2 we achieved 1400 tr/s on a quad core (an anonymous CPU for now ;-). But Anand's article really got us curious and we replaced our mighty Cheetah disk with the Intel x25-M SSD (80 GB). All of a sudden we achieved 1900 tr/s! No less than 35% more transactions, just by replacing the disk that holds the log with the fastest SSD of the moment. That is pretty amazing if you consider that there is no indication whatsoever that we were bottlenecked by our log disk.
Wonder what that anonymous CPU is :p:
Here are results to compare from his previous article:
Attachment 88814
Attachment 88812
I think AMD posted that Intel result because the only other linux results where from sgi running on altix cluster nodes. I wonder why they used an redundant 700W psu for the dual socket opteron test(#18) and non redundants for the quad tests (#89,#90).
Their 2.7GHz results (#91,#92) are the only ones using windows server 2008 on the other hand.
will even be more interesting when first shangai benches arrive on the virtualization layer, the red line which now has some clear distance will be very narrow and dunny will only survive with the 7460 and off course the marketing bull that 24 cores provide more then 16 cores... if you don't count price and power consumption :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
better watch that comment about power consumption 6 core dunnington L7455 only has a TDP of 65W and clocked at 2,13ghz -> Opteron 8354 TDP 75W 2.2ghz.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
Or the E7450 2,4ghz TDP 90W -> Opteron 8358 2,4ghz TDP 105W ;)
That is definitely not Dunnington's max TDP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
And assuming perfect scaling, The 2.13Ghz 6-core gets only 880 transactions. Of course it doesn't scale perfect so it'll be higher, but it isn't even a victory thanks to the crappy bloodsucking FB-DIMMs.
and the shism between the real world and amds markom world grows larger and larger...
2.7ghz and an average score... wow, that was really worth the cheating :rolleyes:
:ROTF: those are barcelona's not shanghai and those are AMD ACP ratings, not TDPQuote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
dunnington's max tdp is 170W, that's why you don't see the top bin in all servers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
i never said they where shanghai, and if those rateings are ACP its even worse... :ROTF:
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLG9P -> TDP 130W and thats the highest 74xx you can get.
I think you mixed it up with the X5492 -> TDP 150W
AMD rates all their server chips with an ACP rating. You can pretty much count an extra 15 Watts on top of it to get you to the TDP rating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
15?Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
55=79
75=115
105=137
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/cont...61C_ACP_WP.pdf
It was just a rough figure, a 105 Watt ACP would result in a 125 Watt TDP for the same clocked desktop chip. So 20 would probably be more accurate in this case, but I didn't really put much thought into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
A 105 W. ACP server chips is usually a 125 W. (TDP) desktop chip
A 75 W. ACP server chip is usually a 89 W. (TDP) desktop chip
And a 55 W. ACP server chip is usually a 65 W. (TDP) desktop chip
All pretty rough, but in the end it's simply better to just measure at the wall outlet. From a average consumer perspective that is.
Remember K10 includes IMC and HT controller.
And i7 uses less power than Core 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
So whats the new excuse?
Less power in what situation?Full load or idle?
You want to say that in power draw test ,a 2.66Ghz Core i7 vs 2.66Ghz Core2Q is a win for i7 in full load across 4 cores?
Also you missed one reply in other thread.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3453&p=3Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
:yepp:
Its always been a retarded comment with the MCH using ohh so much. And like HT uses alot vs FSB?
Maybe thats why we got huge heatsinks and sometimes fans on PCIe switches alone.
What a joke. Q9770 has a lot more voltage than most other Core 2 Quads.
Here's an idea- why don't we just overvolt the i7 by some and run it on load, eh? 80 degrees on 100% load under watercooling for 3.8Ghz, not bad eh. Not even the 65nm Agena at 3.5Ghz produces that kind of heat.
http://www.abload.de/img/4ghzb9cy.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
:rolleyes:
65nm K10 at 3.5=chernobyl :rofl:
You can't really rely on the on-board temperature sensor of a CPU, if this CPU says its running at 50 degrees Celcius and another completely different says its running at 70 degrees, then which one is running at a higher temperature? You probably still don't have a clue, unless you take a properly calibrated temperature sensor to do the measurement of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
Wow did i ask about C2Q Extreme comparison or a normal 2.66Ghz part??Can you read my post at all?
You pick the worst case for C2Q,an EE that has had "issues" with very high power draw at 3+Ghz clocks.Even the QX9650 overclocked (clocks touched,not volts) manages to have a lot lower power draw than a QX9770...
A graph for you.It's from LS:
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/intel_i7/winmax.gif
Watch QX9650 @3Ghz VS Core i7 920 .Core2Q wins in power draw test by a large margin while running at 11% higher clock.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3448&p=9Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
look at the power consumption at 2.66ghz....
better start pm'ing mods for removing this post again....
btw, its almost logical nehalem would consume more power at same freq/voltage as a C2q, it has more transistors
although intel used static cmos
*cough* performance difference *cough*Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellisimo
sick burn! I was waiting for someone to post this.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3453&p=3Quote:
When the i7-965 significantly outperforms the QX9770, its power consumption is around the same - thus giving us much better performance per watt. When the i7-965 can't really outperform the QX9770, for example in some of the gaming benchmarks, the total system power consumption is much lower.
:wasntme:
One strange(?) thing about these tests is that big sites in english seems to be more positive compared to sites from other countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Here is a picture from a swedish review of i7
http://sweclockers.com/imagebank/plo...rukning001.png
http://sweclockers.com/articles_show.php?id=6125&page=5
And thus?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
That makes no sense.
No matter what, I do think Intel messed something up with Nehalem regarding power usage. First K10 is called Prescott because of its power usage, now Nehalem uses the same architecture and it's all good?
I mean, 1K for a Extreme Edition/FX is completely normal because of the performance difference? Your comment ain't really valid there:rolleyes:
its quite funny....
when it turned out that phenom consumed more then kentsfield (cpu only), it was irelevant and only platform consumption was relevant.
Now suddenly people who said platform only counsumption matters, say cpu only is relevant again?
Seems quite hypocritical to me....
Keywords : QX9770,current leakage,3+Ghz clocks,extreme suckage/low power efficiency,fail comparisonQuote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Don't waste your breath man,he will spin it like a good spintel worker.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellisimo
Absolute max. power consumption of ci7 is higher then for C2Q, but if you compare it running the same apps (as anand did) they need less power for the same task. The 4 "virtual cores" have a price.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Sometimes i wonder why people dont critize that 4 cores need more power then 2 cores more often. :ROTF:
Now you have the same, people complain that 4+4 cores need more power then 4 cores. :p:
btw does anyone have power consumption comparsions with SMT/Turbo disabled for Ci7 to C2D?
Did this come out as a surprise? Same with ATI vs. Nvidia. Same will happen if/when AMD goes past Intel once again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Intel is offering a CPU, AMD is offering a whole platform, but I know this is about CPUs.
Your point being? Sounds like a poor excuse for the higher power consumption. Does it matter really what is in if the results speak for themselves?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Platform -> aka CPU and Chipset (compared with the same gfx).Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
I'd like to include gfx to that, but fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
To be more precise: AMD is marketting their own platform which is capable of running games with reasonable price. Majority of people here would be the target audience. Intel does not get there anytime soon.
But as I said, fair enough. :)
What leakage? Are you saying that they're not comparable at 3,2GHz because Nehalem is new or something? We are not talking about 65nm AMD process here ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Another round of hypocrists please... :down:
Read the post in which i asked for 2.66 vs 2.66Ghz comparison.Other user provided the link to the same anandtech website where 920 consumes a lot more than york @ 2.66Ghz.So picking up the most problematic part from power draw level(QX9770) just to paint a nice picture about i7 power draw is lame.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
I provided the Lost Circuits measurement where QX9650 draws 20% less power while working at 11% higher clock.Shintai claimed the complete opposite-a lower power draw for same clocked core i7 and c2q
Some people are sure trying hard not to like i7. It has faster ipc and clocks higher all within the same power consumption, Some tests it uses more and others less, This also includes qpi so system power should be the same or better in most tests.
The andandtech's 2.66vs2.66Ghz test was done on the system level,not VRM level... The difference is not small.
I dislike it for it's price. For the price of the platform. For the fact that I could get almost the same performance with C2Q CPU. Yes, it is better, but does it justify the price? IMO not and thus my opinion is that it has failed to take over the crown from Core2 arch at this moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by gallag
yes but the 920 performance = approx. QX9770. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
So in theory you could clock down the 920 to a certain degree (lets say 2,3ghz) to match the performance of a 9450. Wonder what the 920 would than consume. :)
I should have missed the first hypocrist round then? Or do you recall the GPU+CPU argument, which was nothing more than crap anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Indeed. It's no news I like AMD a lot, especially K10 vs Yorkfield. K10 had a lot more things to tweak, cheaper etc. But, at this point MOSFETs blew out with my new 9950BE which I bought to fix the idle freezing of the 9850BE, where I thought the SB750 would fix that, which it didnt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
The, so to say, impopularity of AMD is slighlty showing in my experience with motherboards. I started to look around for an alternative, and as I really loved Asus' ROG boards for the Intel platform I decided to give that a try.
I started to compare prices where at some point I noticed the price of a 775 platform vs 1366 ain't that big, if you chose the best Yorkfield though. So at this point Im about to order some 1366 stuff since when you look at the enthusiast prices (apart from CPU's) the difference ain't that big compared to 775.
However, if you currently just got a new 775 system, or something similar with huge clocks, it's far from worth it to dump it and get Nehalem at all, in that matter you're very right.
AMD still is a very nice product for me, but shame the motherboards ain't that good compared to motherboards for the Intel platform. Maybe I just had bad luck, but too much badluck ain't an excuse to try it once again for me.
There's a simple explanation I like, the i7 920 is the trash bin of Nehalem using enthusiast-voltages so yield will be no issue. I believe it, in dubio pro reo (as of now Intel has a good track-record). "Apples for Apples", highest vs highest end, Intel improved 30-40% in perf/W it seems, this bodes well for the future of i7.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammsteiner
We do not have enough datapoints to suport your conclusion as of now. K10 and Prescott needed to scale clock-wise but couldn't, Nehalem doesn't even need to scale as of now, because of it's incredible performance. So any such comparison is inappropriate.
And have you think about how first Anand says X, and then Y? Read the review I posted, that covers overclocking and power consumption and explains why first X and then Y. Nehalem seems to be special and sensitive about this, can't wait to test it myself. That's why you see completely opposite PC measurements between reviews. Who's right? Still, in all reviews you can clearly see that perf/watt is greatly improved, even in your links. It sucks more power at times, but it destroys Penryn at the same time. Remember Intel's claims about a 2:1 ratio between perf and PC? That doesn't mean it won't consume less power, with seems to be the case regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
It's your choice: less power or more perfomance. Penryn vs Nehalem. But in perf/watt Nehalem wins hands down. If you have the money the choice is eaaaasy.
i really like i7, but people dont have to exaggerate, nehalem is far from perfectQuote:
Originally Posted by gallag
- it offers superior performance, but at a higher power consumption
- very expensive platform (X58 + DDR3 + CPU)
- poor extreme overclocking on normal chips (QPI limit) | they should introduce some black editions like AMD...
- Single-threaded not that fast
in my opinion you have to be realistic, no current CPU from AMD or Intel is perfect, nor is bad or crap
both AMD and Intel release wonderfull products, but this is quickly forgotten if one of the companies has a bit of a performance advantage
ehem:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellisimo
1) and lower powerconsumption if run at same performance
2) yes, but which generation change didn't do that (P4 to C2, etc.), the only real letdown are the boards, you cant get a board for less then 200€ (personaly i dont mind, but a lot of people do).
3) extreme ocerclocking has no "qpi" (more like blck) limit. :p: The EE has unlocked multi so your up to go. 6ghz+ already happend on nehalem
4) Depends, but its not slower then the pervious generations so its good enough. :yepp:
4GHz or more is poor for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellisimo
like i said, poor EXTREME overclocking on normal chips (aka NOT EXTREME versions)Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
1) i know it has a performance advantage and a performance/watt advantage.... did i state otherwise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
2) not in the mood for research
3) i did say extreme overclocking using non extreme chips, hence the need for some black editions by intel
4) sometimes it is a little bit, but only a few percentages, but i agree on point 4 :)
I guess some people aren't easily satisfied. Although Bellisimo is probably not properly informed yet. (Just a guess though.)Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
Apparently it's that first category. Has there ever been a lower bin chip with good extreme overclocking? Core i7 920 does pretty good from an overclockers perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellisimo
3th time....Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
extreme overclocking on the non-extreme variants of the i7 is almost impossible
You know that those i7 numbers are too low. He did not measure uncore requirements. See here. Like measuring Phenom without NB and L3. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
That's why I'm asking you, how does the Q9450 or the Q6600 for example do in extreme overclocking? Pretty much the same if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellisimo
Funny, We have a extreme overclocking section on this very board, Seems the i7 920 is quite the performer with clocks at 4.6, 4.3 etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellisimo
What am I missing that makes me think you are talking nonsense?
Thanks Justapost,i missed that :up:.Nice link btw!Quote:
Originally Posted by justapost
strange, i can find E8600 @ 6.6ghz = 100% OCQuote:
Originally Posted by gallag
still havent seen any 920 passing 5ghz
back on topic:
shanghai looks pretty decent in power consumption
edit// removed link
Where is the speechless smiley?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellisimo
NO, I think he means that 4Ghz ain't something special. It's like 3.4Ghz for AMD is. It's pretty common now.
I mean, you could set a note of 5 lines, give it to your grandma including an untweaked PC and she can get it 3.6Ghz without problems in 99.99% of the times without knowing wtf she just did:rolleyes:
Anyhow, although it might be that simple, it's still a lot faster than what you can get on the market anyway.
Also i7 920 might be hitting 4.3 and 4.6Ghz, the majority just lands before 4Ghz or just at 4Ghz. It's not like because one or two CPU's got over it that this is a valid argument to say most 920's get that high.
Also it's food for thought whether anything around 4Ghz is a 'good' OC nowadays for Intel, as said, it's too common. Now a Phenom at 3.8Ghz 24/7 stable with watercooling, that's an achievement. Or i7 920 4.5Ghz, since not all Yorkfields got even that high, would be an achievement (if 24/7 stable on high-end air/watercooling, something durable).
Fact still remains, i7 920 @4Ghz, no matter how simple, is faster than anything on the market. But... Once again this ain't an Intel thread, so lets get back on topic. I guess with all the things I typed above everything what's relevant is being said now regarding i7 being a crap OC'er or not.
haha, i can already view benchmark results on some website, shanghai is pretty good :)
some awesome improvements
a 2.7 shanghai beats a 2.66 harpertown in perf/watt easily
So why no link?
its some kind of trick with their website, will post the numbers i have found out :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Eson
already found: povray, cinebench, euler 3d, ...
gimme some more minutes
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellisimo
I'm guessing everyone here has access to LN2 or dice. I mean, 4GHz+ with Core i7 920 on air is crap. We need 6GHz+ on AIR!!!
And Phenom has trouble getting to 3.6GHz. :rolleyes:
And guess what? Core i7 hasn't even been launched, why don't you wait a bit before wanting 6GHz+ benches.
A trick huh? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellisimo
Really gives this "site" credibility.
OK, here are the results, thank you anonymous website :yepp: ;)
Bench: Caselab Euler 3D
AMD Opteron 2384: 63.1s
Intel Xeon L540: 66.9s
AMD Opteron 2356: 84s
Bench: Cinebenc 10
AMD Opteron 2384: 19357
Intel Xeon L540: 19997
AMD Opteron 2356: 15372
Bench: FlamMap FSPRO
AMD Opteron 2384: 427
Intel Xeon L540: 376s
AMD Opteron 2356: 512
Bench: HL2 Build Map Bench
AMD Opteron 2384: 91s
Intel Xeon L540: 87s
AMD Opteron 2356: 109s
Bench: PovRay 3.7b21 Chess2 1280*1024
AMD Opteron 2384: 58.4s
Intel Xeon L540: 59.1s
AMD Opteron 2356: 69.4s
Bench: SunGard AA
AMD Opteron 2384: 249.6s
Intel Xeon L540: 230.2s
AMD Opteron 2356: 300.2s
Power Consumption Idle
AMD Opteron 2384: 100W
Intel Xeon L540: 169W
AMD Opteron 2356: 109W
Power Consumption Load
AMD Opteron 2384: 197W
Intel Xeon L540: 227W
AMD Opteron 2356: 226W
you dont have to believe me, took me about an half an hour to find it, you can also wait for 2 days, i dont care, and no i didnt hack or something...Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
i didnt say 4hz on air is crap, but the extreme overclocking (if you know what is.... dont think so judging from your statement, maybe look up what dryice and ln2 are) is very limitied because of the QPI, maybe some mobos will go to 250, but i doubt it at this moment
your the devil :eek: :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellisimo
Well not my finds I'll pass your thank to KTE whom found that systematic error here.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
if anyone is interested in the HWI SQL results? or sissoft 2009 MEM/L1/L2 results, i will post them
i can also compare with a x5470 if you guys like? thats a 3.3ghz xeon
Yes please. :up:
Perf/Watt looks good ~10% advantage here over all compared to xeon and 35% compared to 65nm k10.
Is the moon made of cheese? Is Shintai on Intel's payroll? POST IT BABY! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Bellisimo