Strange trend with GPU and CPU combo

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/p...3214/20030.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/p...3214/19995.png


" Your eyes are not deceiving you. After 100+ clean OS installs, countless video card, motherboard, memory and driver combinations, we have results that are not only repeatable, but appear to be valid. We also tracked in-game performance with FRAPS and had similar results. Put simply, unless we have something odd going on with driver optimizations, a BIOS bug, or a glitch in the OS, our NV cards perform better on the AMD platform than they do on the Intel platform. The pattern reverses itself when we utilize the AMD video cards. These results also repeat themselves in other games like H.A.W.X. and Left 4 Dead but not in Crysis Warhead or Dawn of War II. So, besides the gaming situation, we also see a similar pattern in AutoCad 2010 and other 3D rendering applications where GPU acceleration is utilized, it is just not as pronounced. "

(From Anandtech. Source http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3639&p=3 )

Can anyone here explain this phenomenon to me :confused:

nice find!

Phenom II is very balanced CPU with excellent I/O and memory subsystems-HyperTransport and IMC.The combination of these two and their hw implementation could possibly be the key in the results they observed(CPU-GPU communication).

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...80,2156-2.html
Found this at Tom's, showing the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Phenom II is very balanced CPU with excellent I/O and memory subsystems-HyperTransport and IMC.The combination of these two and their hw implementation could possibly be the key in the results they observed(CPU-GPU communication).

---

Then why are the roles reversed with Radeons if its simply IO and CPU-GPU communication ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I_no

Then why are the roles reversed with Radeons if its simply IO and CPU-GPU communication ?

---

Drivers?

Wow...this is strange. That's not a single fps here or there either, that is significant.

Simon?

Gary?

What's up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I_no

Then why are the roles reversed with Radeons if its simply IO and CPU-GPU communication ?

---

Like keithlm said ,probably drivers.
One can also use NV based board for AMD system and test it with Radeons and NV cards to see if chipset is the culprit.

Maybe now we can understand when nVidia said i7 isn't worth it for games back in April ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Like keithlm said ,probably drivers.
One can also use NV based board for AMD system and test it with Radeons and NV cards to see if chipset is the culprit.

---

I should expound:

In the last 6 months or so there have been one or maybe two times ATI has claimed they were adding performance improvements for multiple CPU. But it definitely seems to be a work in progress.

NEXT QUESTION: Does this trend also pertain to Crossfire vs SLI?

when an amd cpu scores better than an intel cpu, they call it strange. when an intel cpu scores better than an amd cpu, then the benchmark is credible and the incessant intel leg humping starts.

cant we accept the benchmark results as it is? that an amd cpu, despite all benchmarks being compiled with intel optimization flags, still trounced the inferior architecture? i know using vendor neutral and open source benchmarks, amd processors are better, clock for clock.

this just proves the bias that exists at those benchmarketing sites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I_no

Then why are the roles reversed with Radeons if its simply IO and CPU-GPU communication ?

---

Good question! Poor answers tho, unless you want to believe that AMD writes bad drivers for its own platforms, etc. For now, the phenomenon can only be explained as follows: in bottle-necked scenarios "... Nvidia's card cannot translate the Core i7's microarchitecture into the same performance advantage, giving AMD's Phenom II-series chips the advantage...." - Tom's Hardware (quoted from link above).

From the article:

Quote:

---

It is items like this that make you lose hair and delay articles. Neither of which I can afford to have happen. However, we have several suppliers assisting us with the problem (if it is a problem) and hope to have an answer shortly. These results also repeat themselves in other games like H.A.W.X. and Left 4 Dead but not in Crysis Warhead or Dawn of War II. So, besides the gaming situation, we also see a similar pattern in AutoCad 2010 and other 3D rendering applications where GPU acceleration is utilized, it is just not as pronounced.

---

Now it is a problem when a Phenom tops the chart. :rolleyes:

I would have thought a ATI card on a ATI chipset would do a bit better than an Nvida GPU just because all the drivers are from one place. Guess not.

nice to see this in solid numbers, cause i have sort of guessed this for a while, thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Like keithlm said ,probably drivers.
One can also use NV based board for AMD system and test it with Radeons and NV cards to see if chipset is the culprit.

---

it happens in 3dmark 06 ati card score lower cpu points.
sm2.0 and sm3.0 are both different too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keithlm

I should expound:

In the last 6 months or so there have been one or maybe two times ATI has claimed they were adding performance improvements for multiple CPU. But it definitely seems to be a work in progress.

NEXT QUESTION: Does this trend also pertain to Crossfire vs SLI?

---

it's like 1-5 % though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wuttz

when an amd cpu scores better than an intel cpu, they call it strange. when an intel cpu scores better than an amd cpu, then the benchmark is credible and the incessant intel leg humping starts.

cant we accept the benchmark results as it is? that an amd cpu, despite all benchmarks being compiled with intel optimization flags, still trounced the inferior architecture? i know using vendor neutral and open source benchmarks, amd processors are better, clock for clock.

this just proves the bias that exists at those benchmarketing sites.

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Good question! Poor answers tho, unless you want to believe that AMD writes bad drivers for its own platforms, etc. For now, the phenomenon can only be explained as follows: in bottle-necked scenarios "... Nvidia's card cannot translate the Core i7's microarchitecture into the same performance advantage, giving AMD's Phenom II-series chips the advantage...." - Tom's Hardware (quoted from link above).

---

maybe it's cause the data from L1 cache is smaller in I7 then in phenom II.
I do like test the boards both idea that informal said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PoppaGeek

From the article:


Now it is a problem when a Phenom tops the chart. :rolleyes:

I would have thought a ATI card on a ATI chipset would do a bit better than an Nvida GPU just because all the drivers are from one place. Guess not.

---

LOL x2!

This isn't weird at all, just because i7 can run 8 threads with alot of computing power doesn't mean it's fastest in every situation. Deneb rocks in games, you just saw it:D This is no bug or "problem" or whatever people may think it is.

Facepalm @ those who are shocked by the fact that Phenom II actually is more than good enough by today's standards:rolleyes:

Funny how when Phenoms rock under linux (GCC compiled apps) then OS version is the culprit :p: and then when Phenom rocks in games(delivering much higher minimum fps with NV cards which drivers are well optimized for fast multicore chips) then there is a "problem" with the NV cards or the system or something else :ROTF: . The fault/problem is clearly the Deneb core,its very existence :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by knopflerbruce

This isn't weird at all, just because i7 can run 8 threads with alot of computing power doesn't mean it's fastest in every situation. Deneb rocks in games, you just saw it:D This is no bug or "problem" or whatever people may think it is.

Facepalm @ those who are shocked by the fact that Phenom II actually is more than good enough by today's standards:rolleyes:

---

Well that wasn’t the “issue” either, the mystery lies with the performance of the said CPU+GPU combo, which doesn’t really make any sense :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Funny how when Phenoms rock under linux (GCC compiled apps) then OS version is the culprit :p: and then when Phenom rocks in games(delivering much higher minimum fps with NV cards which drivers are well optimized for fast multicore chips) then there is a "problem" with the NV cards or the system or something else :ROTF: . The fault/problem is clearly the Deneb core,its very existence :D

---

Let's be a little objective here:

1. If the deneb core is this superior why is this anomally only evident with these two game titles?

2. Why does phenom ii ONLY "rock" when the gpu becomes bottle-necked? Why even allow the gpu to bottleneck in a test that is mainly aimed at showing cpu performance in gaming, and real world gamers do everything to avoid bottle-necking the gpu for best gaming results?

3. Why is phenom only very competitive on a marginal alpha OS which is clearly bugged and unoptimized?

4. Why would an enthusiast ignore all mainstream evidence in favor of fringe (read rare) results where the weaker platform gains an edge, especially when it involves third-party hardware whose developers have admitted the results are an anomally?

5. If the deneb core is clearly superior, why doesn't it dominate all tests at the same clocks, but actually comes last in all tests at the same clocks?

Yes, this is the AMD section, but how about a little objectivity? One can't just pretend that this section of the forum is a closed world where all manners of untruth can fly under the radar.

im more interested in the reply that NV will give... gimping performance on purpose, to hurt intel?... now that would be a epic (fail) move by NV :rofl:

Good thing i never bought a NV card for the last 6 years. :D

Its also kind ironic to see that you get best performance with an AMD card on a intel system, while NV gives better performance on AMD.... :ROTF:

edit:
lol just realized the toms hardware article is form february... gg NV for not addressing this even in the slightest way for half a year... :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

im more interested in the reply that NV will give... gimping performance on purpose, to hurt intel?... now that would be a epic (fail) move by NV :rofl:

Good thing i never bought a NV card for the last 6 years. :D

Its also kind ironic to see that you get best performance with an AMD card on a intel system, while NV gives better performance on AMD.... :ROTF:

---

I thought about that possibility, but gave up the idea for the same reason you mention. It'll be suicidal, and too risky imo.

^(sucker2k)your post is based on the premise that the dragon platform is a weaker design because it lags in most benchmarks, without taking into account that these benchmarks are heavily optimized with intel flags.

if you want unbiased and objective results, bench with an open source code and a vendor neutral operating system.

as far as im concerned, youre the one who lacks objectivity when the results of the benchmark favor amd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wuttz

^(sucker2k)your post is based on the premise that the dragon platform is a weaker design because it lags in most benchmarks, without taking into account that these benchmarks are heavily optimized with intel flags.

if you want unbiased and objective results, bench with an open source code and a vendor neutral operating system.

as far as im concerned, youre the one who lacks objectivity when the results of the benchmark favor amd.

---

No need for a conspiracy theory.... :rofl:

What OS are you typing on right now? Since when did fringe become mainstream? :shrug: No need to turn the world upside down for the sake of hardware.

The solution to question of you conspiracy theorists is simple: compare the hard numbers on that linux platform to ANY on the windows platform and you'd realize your results. If you feel your hardware runs better on linux, go for it. :ROTF:

Zucker you have to read the article first :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

These results also repeat themselves in other games like H.A.W.X. and Left 4 Dead but not in Crysis Warhead or Dawn of War II. So, besides the gaming situation, we also see a similar pattern in AutoCad 2010 and other 3D rendering applications where GPU acceleration is utilized, it is just not as pronounced.

---

You see there is similar behavior in 2 more titles and plethora of apps which use GPU acceleration which rules out the "game" code.

Phenoms don not only rock when GPU is bottleneck,they do well all around in gaming. If GPU is the bottleneck how come Phenom II coupled with NV card has SO MUCH higher minimum fps? The NV GPU is not the bottleneck in AT tests,but something else is in intel platform while used with NV cards(Pcie implementation,chipset,I/O or something else may be the culprit for sub par performance with NV cards).

Linux is not marginal OS at all.It may be in your head,but in real world it is used a lot.Many DT users have dual boot(myself included) of Win XX and Linux. The version they used is clearly not bugged and unoptimized since phoronix use it for a while and in their opinion is one of the most stable and reliable thus far. If this wasn't the case,rest assured they wouldn't use it.

"Weaker platform" meaning lacking Turbo boost to OC itself? Yeah by that definition it is a weaker platform. Thank God that many experienced DT users auto tune their systems which with BE CPUs is a matter of 2 variables in BIOS or AOD-multiplier and Vcore. Walk in the park and is provides great fun. This weaker platform provides 6% less performance on average than i7-870 @ 2.93Ghz with turbo and SMT (on stock settings- rated with workloads from office, multimedia and games) :
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h...formancerating
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/3525/perfrating.jpg

Deneb core is not overall "superior" ,that's is not the issue.The things is that the picture is not black and white as one can see from the above review from plethora of applications.Deneb is very competitive across multiple workloads on the OS platform for which developers mostly code with intel in mind(using icc which as shown by Agner at Aces discriminates AMD cores with "GenuineIntel" check at compile time and assigns them less then best/optimal compile switches).

You can play your intel cop game,but the facts won't change. Deneb is very well performing core and AMD is not going anywhere.Deneb could use its own Turbo feature ,just for "benchmarketing" purposes,but I suspect AMD will incorporate one in near future(maybe as soon as the improved 32nm shrink version comes on the market).

However, the difference between the ATI - AMD and ATI - INTEL combination is far less then the difference between NV – AMD and NV – INTEL combinations.

Whatever the reason, I’ll take any system that will play the games I want to play.

What I’ve picked up moving from GTX280 to borrowed 4870X2 and now GTX 295 is that my system do feel a lot more responsive with less garbage running in the background on both XP SP3 and Vista 32bit Home Premium. I’ve tried ATI and things worked, but the system just felt a lot more sluggish when compared to the system with Nvidia graphics.

The system I am using at present is a Phenom II 955 @ 3.6ghz 2 x 1Gb DDR3 @ 1600mhz 7 7 7 21 T1 and MSI 790FX G70 mobo.

But I do find it strange that if the tables were turned there would have been no hoohaa about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Zucker you have to read the article first :rolleyes:

---

Don't worry, I read it.

Quote:

---

These results also repeat themselves in other games like H.A.W.X. and Left 4 Dead but not in Crysis Warhead or Dawn of War II. So, besides the gaming situation, we also see a similar pattern in AutoCad 2010 and other 3D rendering applications where GPU acceleration is utilized, it is just not as pronounced.

---

Therfore imo negligible, and that's why I singled out those two. Read Tom's and the plethora of tests they did to isolate the problem. This is not a new issue, but an old one.

And feel free to neglect the rest of the post which addressed the core of your "arguments" :p:. Especially the graph which shows the average performance in office,games and multimedia of i7-870 and 965BE being 6% apart ;)

Anyhow the trend is repeatable in non-gaming apps which proves there is no "problem" ,it seems the I/O system on AMD hardware just works a bit better with NV cards.

:wth::sick: not the compiler conspiracy stuff again...

http://aceshardware.freeforums.org/post5566.html#p5566

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opteron@Aces

As mentioned before, I thought that Intel stopped the "intel only" coding with that version, as AMD is using it against intel in the ongoing lawsuit:

---

Quote:

---

125. Intel has designed its compiler purposely to degrade performance when a program is run on an AMD platform. To achieve this, Intel designed the compiler to compile code along several alternate code paths. Some paths are executed when the program runs on an Intel
platform and others are executed when the program is operated on a computer with an AMD microprocessor. (The choice of code path is determined when the program is started, using a feature known as “CPUID” which identifies the computer’s microprocessor.) By design, the
code paths were not created equally. If the program detects a “Genuine Intel” microprocessor, it executes a fully optimized code path and operates with the maximum efficiency. However, if the program detects an “Authentic AMD” microprocessor, it executes a different code path
that will degrade the program’s performance or cause it to crash.

---

http://redirectingat.com/?id=593X100..._Complaint.pdf

Now this ;)
http://aceshardware.freeforums.org/post5584.html#p5584

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agner Fog@Aces

I just tried Intel C++ compiler version 10.1 with option /QxO as you suggested. It generates the following versions of code for common mathematical functions: SSE2, SSE3, SSE4.1 and non-Intel SSE2. It doesn't work on any CPU prior to SSE2. This is the only compiler option that makes it run reasonably on an AMD, but why are there two different SSE2 versions, one for Intel and one for AMD? When I hack the CPU-dispatcher and makes it believe that it is an Intel, it runs 50 - 100 % faster. This means that the Intel-SSE2 version is faster than the AMD-SSE2 version when running on an AMD processor!

There are also options that work on any processor. For example /QaxB. This options runs non-vectorized SSE2 code on Intel processors and old 8087 code on AMD processors. I measured this to be 5-10 times slower than the /QxO option on an AMD Opteron.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

http://aceshardware.freeforums.org/post5566.html#p5566


http://redirectingat.com/?id=593X100..._Complaint.pdf

Now this ;)
http://aceshardware.freeforums.org/post5584.html#p5584

---

wasn't that all proven when they used a via cpu for both code paths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

*snip*

---

Wonder why you warm up old stories, that complain has no substance anymore, cause past ICC 9.x intel enable the use of sse2 on none Intel architectures.

Not to mention that the "Crippeled" non intel SSE2 code is faster than any optimized code gcc/msvc can produce for x86....

Also quite entertaining that in your, link the conclusion was that ICC is only used in a minority of apps, and most of the time gcc/msvc is used. Thus the you made your own :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:ing look kinda foolish, when the majority of the industrie already is not using ICC (according to that thread).

Or you are disagreeing with that thread and no tell me that all open source apps like Lame, x264, etc. and the majority of games is using ICC?

And why again are we discussing compilers, when its quite obviouse that theres something wrong with NV+Intel, when all other setups work (NV+AMD, AMD+Intel, AMD+AMD). So the blame is either to be given intel or NV, but with the fact that Intel+AMD works the suspicion is quite strong that NV just failed at that regard....

I just stated that icc didn't provide the best optimization for AMD cores in the past(most commercial apps on the market today that were compiled with icc were done with older version ).
We are discussing this since other pro intel user complained about 750 i5 and i7 linux review.
Also most developers do code and optimize for the market leader which is intel(they do hold the 80+% of the market after all).

And yes,again,when AMD combo is better in something then obviously it's NV's fault or AMD's fault since it CAN'T be better,as we all know i7 is omgbbq and it roxorz...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

And why again are we discussing compilers, when its quite obviouse that theres something wrong with NV+Intel, when all other setups work (NV+AMD, AMD+Intel, AMD+AMD). So the blame is either to be given intel or NV, but with the fact that Intel+AMD works the suspicion is quite strong that NV just failed at that regard....

---

I don't think that NV can be blamed here. Its not like GTX275 is not performing at all with the I7, rather its quite competitive with the 4890 when coupled with I7. The thing is that GTX275 is performing much better with Phenom.

You can't blame nVidia when things work much better than expected, you can only blame when things don't happen the right way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

And feel free to neglect the rest of the post which addressed the core of your "arguments" :p:. Especially the graph which shows the average performance in office,games and multimedia of i7-870 and 965BE being 6% apart ;)

Anyhow the trend is repeatable in non-gaming apps which proves there is no "problem" ,it seems the I/O system on AMD hardware just works a bit better with NV cards.

---

I really like that review, and no not cause AMD faired so well. They did a great job of including so many bench test and showing more of the "whole" picture. One of the best reviews I have seen.

I saw those numbers in AT and if I have to make a conclusion based solely on those graphics I would say that the GTX275 is a better performing card than the HD4890 but has problems with the i7 platform. Also what about all the reviews done when the HD4890 and GTX275 were launched? That reviews in the vast mayority were done with a Core i7 platform.

This comes from an old article, but would seem to add some backup to the idea its down to a system bottleneck:

http://img.tomshardware.com/us/2007/...s/image020.png

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...is,1572-8.html

if the 275gtx and 4890 are both scaling like their older siblings, in pcie limited situations the ati card should handle it much better, so any platform advantage in bandwidth/latency will not show up on the ati card. but, would show prominently on the nvidia card.

easy enough to test also, see if the cards scale nicely if the # of slots is reduced. if the pattern persists, or becomes more pronounced - nail in coffin. if the change has little effect, its not pcie limitations

Our friend justapost did his own i5(turbo on) Vs Phenom II tests and this is his post at phoronix forum:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justapost@ phronix forum

I received an i5 750 today, together with an GBT P55-UD4 mobo. I compared it with my 955BE + GBT GA-MA785GMT-UD2H. Only mobo and cpu differ between setups. Both used 4GB OCZ Plats at 1333MHz CL7 and an nvidia 8800GT 1GB gfx. As os I choose sidux 2009-2 dist-updated. I left all power saving features on and also enabled turbo on the 750. cpufreq-acpi seems to ignore the two and one core increases. The chip ran at 2.8GHz most of the time.
http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...5168-12682-147
I plan to run the full universe suite and more clock vs. clock comparisons in the next days.

---

this is a comment on his results:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apopas

Similar results with Michael's tests which show Phenom to beat i5 in general, whether the windows' benchmarks shows the opposite...

---

These are his results,note that his OS is different from the one Phoronix used.

very good article, nice to see a fellow sidux user benching :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Our friend justapost did his own i5(turbo on) Vs Phenom II tests and this is his post at phoronix forum:

this is a comment on his results:

These are his results,note that his OS is different from the one Phoronix used.

---

Sidux what.....? :rofl: Have you made the switch from Windows to Sidux $@%*&%^ yet? I do get your point, lynnfield runs poorly on some unstable alpha linux OS platform. :clap:

Quote:

---

OS: Debian unstable
Kernel: 2.6.31-0.slh.3-sidux-amd64 (x86_64)
Desktop: KDE 4.3.1
Display Server: X.Org Server 1.6.3.901 (1.6.4 RC 1)
OpenGL: 3.0.0 NVIDIA 185.18.36
Compiler: GCC 4.3.4
File-System: ext3
Screen Resolution: 1600x1200

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Sidux what.....? :rofl: Have you made the switch from Windows to Sidux $@%*&%^ yet? I do get your point, lynnfield runs poorly on some unstable alpha linux OS platform. :clap:

---

Yeah more excuses. BTW your selective replying skills are now becoming better ;). Still haven't replied to the post I made the other day :). To sum it up again,across a whole range of Windows apps,the difference on average between stock i7-870 and stock 965BE is 6%.Think about it :p:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Sidux what.....? :rofl: Have you made the switch from Windows to Sidux $@%*&%^ yet? I do get your point, lynnfield runs poorly on some unstable alpha linux OS platform. :clap:

---

sweet ignorance :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Yeah more excuses. BTW your selective replying skills are now becoming better ;). Still haven't replied to the post I made the other day :). To sum it up again,across a whole range of Windows apps,the difference on average between stock i7-870 and stock 965BE is 6%.Think about it :p:.

---

The "pot" calling the "kettle" black? Well, according to the link in that post I "selectively" replied to, a Q9550=i5 750=PH II 965! I'm sure you agree that the 1% that separates the first two from the third cpu is within the margin of error? I mean you're known to shave off as much as 3-4% in other cases. The fact is that you would go to lengths to muddy the numbers, even if it means shooting yourself in the foot. There is also one very simple fact, if you sum up all the tests in all reviews, the i5 750 is the all around better processor. This is not saying AMD's flagship processor is bad; it simply means it is bested by Intel's latest low end mainstream cpu. The i5 750 compared to the 965 BE you get:

Same or better performance
Lower price
Lower power consumption
A far more robust and feature-rich selection of motherboards

What's not to like? :up:

Yeah and following your logic the i5 750 is be all end all of all the desktop models since it is only 7% off from the 870 with SMT and turbo and a few percents more off from the rest of the high end. The point is that the 965BE is not that far behind the whole Nehalem line,it loses by a hair in many tests and by a lot in select few which twists the overall performance rating towards the i5 and i7. Turbo boost,although very good future that AMD will also use, makes the 750 actually not the 2.66Ghz CPU as it never actually works at that clock.This is not bad since you get higher clock out of the box,but paints a wrong picture when someone says 2.66Ghz lynnfield is as fast as 955BE or 965BE.

To sum it up,one more speed bin from AMD and they will cover the 3Ghz Bloomfield equivalent ,they really don't have to be more competitive than this .They will have IPC boosted(a la Deneb) 32nm shrink of 10h so that will tide them over quite nicely until bulldozer launches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Yeah and following your logic the i5 750 is be all end all of all the desktop models since it is only 7% off from the 870 with SMT and turbo and a few percents more off from the rest of the high end. The point is that the 965BE is not that far behind the whole Nehalem line,it loses by a hair in many tests and by a lot in select few which twists the overall performance rating towards the i5 and i7. Turbo boost,although very good future that AMD will also use, makes the 750 actually not the 2.66Ghz CPU as it never actually works at that clock.This is not bad since you get higher clock out of the box,but paints a wrong picture when someone says 2.66Ghz lynnfield is as fast as 955BE or 965BE.

To sum it up,one more speed bin from AMD and they will cover the 3Ghz Bloomfield equivalent ,they really don't have to be more competitive than this .They will have IPC boosted(a la Deneb) 32nm shrink of 10h so that will tide them over quite nicely until bulldozer launches.

---

I really don't understand what "logic" you're talking about. The TRUTH is, depending on what particular app you're running, the difference (% in chips performance) actually varies greatly, eg. most apps capable of taking advantage of 8 threads. And please stop whining about the turbo, it's what you get with Intel's latest. You never hear anyone complaining about the fact that the 965 BE is running at 3.4Ghz at stock ALL THE TIME. Even assuming the best case scenario, the i5 750 is running at only 2.8Ghz with four threads, while the 965BE has a 600mhz advantage, but you won't hear me complaining because that's what you get - that's why one would buy the 965BE over a 940BE for example. Is the i5 750 bad because it packs technologies that allow it to perform better than advertized in certain scenarios? ;)

Don't talk about the future as if AMD's competitors will be sitting on their hands doing nothing. Besides, the NOW is what matters, not to mention Intel's 32nm chip production has taken off and 6-core chips are clocking past 6.3Ghz already (though you didn't hear that from me). :cool:

I'm just saying that with turbo it's not 2.66Ghz CPU anymore.BTW ,applications that can pin down all the cores to the max all the time are not that many(in the desktop world at least).This overall leads to Turbo kicking in harder. Like I said it's useful for benchmarketing,but with stock HSF (the thing that is almost never used in lynnfield reviews-guess why?) the turbo would not kick in due to thermal limitations and the results would be lower for the regular desktop end user-the one that buys stuff and expects it to work out of the box as being reviewed on the net.

As for the Gulftown,I have known the "news" since Shamino first posted his results,you do not have to tell me anything.The CPU is obviously a leaky one,taking ~2V and being produced on highk/mg 32nm at the same time is not bad but now that awesome either. Cold bug is still there,at -150 degrees :(. They are improving on this though,so kudos for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Sidux what.....? :rofl: Have you made the switch from Windows to Sidux $@%*&%^ yet? I do get your point, lynnfield runs poorly on some unstable alpha linux OS platform. :clap:

---

Ehh, I picked sidux because it uses the latest kernel and gcc, and I expect this system is better optimized for lates hardware than older debian or ubuntu releases. Turbo works fine it seems but I need to do more testings.
Michael from phoronix had problems with iinconsisten results using an ubuntu alpha release, my results are repeatble consistent. The packages in debian unstable are not alpha versions from git repositories, normaly they are just the latest available stable versions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

I'm just saying that with turbo it's not 2.66Ghz CPU anymore. BTW ,applications that can pin down all the cores to the max all the time are not that many(in the desktop world at least).This overall leads to Turbo kicking in harder. Like I said it's useful for benchmarketing,but with stock HSF (the thing that is almost never used in lynnfield reviews-guess why?) the turbo would not kick in due to thermal limitations and the results would be lower for the regular desktop end user-the one that buys stuff and expects it to work out of the box as being reviewed on the net.

As for the Gulftown,I have known the "news" since Shamino first posted his results,you do not have to tell me anything.The CPU is obviously a leaky one,taking ~2V and being produced on highk/mg 32nm at the same time is not bad but now that awesome either. Cold bug is still there,at -150 degrees :(. They are improving on this though,so kudos for that.

---

Isn't technology amazing? You actually get more cpu for your money; go figure! My nickname for the i5/i7 line is now the chameleon cpu. It changes "color" based on a range of variables. :up:

I respect your opinion, but you don't have to be the prophet of doom you know. :p: Could you show me a similarly clocked chip in this universe? That's right, there's none. Contrary to what you might think, high clocks/high ipc on the 32nm scale is not a given.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by justapost

Ehh, I picked sidux because it uses the latest kernel and gcc, and I expect this system is better optimized for lates hardware than older debian or ubuntu releases. Turbo works fine it seems but I need to do more testings.
Michael from phoronix had problems with iinconsisten results using an ubuntu alpha release, my results are repeatble consistent. The packages in debian unstable are not alpha versions from git repositories, normaly they are just the latest available stable versions.

---

Thanks for the info, but why review a newly released platform on an OS that is clearly not final? Is windows not to be trusted? Or other mainstream linux platforms that are fully mature? I would like to see your configs tested on mainstream OSes and apps and see what the differences in performance are.

In all this, I say, if one feels they can get a better performance on some fringe OS/apps then of course they need to take that decision. But, it paints a muddy picture when a fresh platform is benched on an alpha OS, using some really obscure apps to arrive at conclusions which differ from 99.9% of the results out there, and especially when 99% of consumers are not going to use that OS or apps benched?

I'm not trying to diss your efforts, but there has to be a reason, so what's your reason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zucker2k

Thanks for the info, but why review a newly released platform on an OS that is clearly not final? Is windows not to be trusted? Or other mainstream linux platforms that are fully mature? I would like to see your configs tested on mainstream OSes and apps and see what the differences in performance are.

---

Well I use linux more often than windows, so the perrformance under that os is what's getting my interest first.
For a new platform you must use an up to date kernel under linux. For example the nic on the p55 platform requires at least kernel version 2.6.30. I picked the more recent 2.6.31 (stable) kernel because it contains the latest cpufreq module used for acpi based eist/cnq cpu power (and frequency) management. There where a few issues in the past like too high delays when the frequency changes. Of course I could build my own recent kernel under a more stable distro (like ubuntu stable based on debian testing and stable). Sidux is based on debian unstable and their last release concentrated on infrastructural changes which are required for best performance with the 2.6.30 kernel. So this distro looked like the best one for this new platform. Again the packages used on that distribution for themselfs are the most actual stable versions. Debian has thousands of packages and a package is considered unstable till it was tested against all it's possible dependencies.
To run the phoronix-test-suite you only need an minimal installation with an basic window manager. The benchmarks themselves depend on a few dozend packages and most of them only require the basic c library and and c-compiler. I use linux since 94 so I know how to fix an dependency problem or how to build an older version of a package if somethings goes wrong.
In general the latest stable versions of the required packages should be the best choice for a new platform.
I'm sure if I would have used an older stable distribution someone would moan that this distribution is not yet optimized for the new platform.
i7 is available for a while now, so chances are good that many of the packages I use have been optimized already.
Once I finished a few overclocking test I plan to compare gcc open64 and icc builds of a few benchmarks to see what difference those make and how the relations may change, you can''t do that on a closed source os with closed source benchmarks.

Here are a few more results, stuff like audio video encoding, disc performance, build, web server and database performace tests. Those are less obscure (at least to linux users).

http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...358-5083-22089