discuss:
http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?id=20790&catid=2
Printable View
blurry pics
Looks like the 45nm's will be more fun than these 65nm, that's for sure. Unfortunately they still can't crunch like Intel can. Overclocked to 3.4GHz, that 45nm Phenom almost does what My C2D does at its 24/7 OC of 3.2GHz. My poor 9500 can't touch my C2D. Then, when I push it to the max @ 3.6GHz, the C2D runs SP1M @ 15.954s and it's light years away. This isn't to ignite a flame war, just stating facts...which I can do because I own both of them and am not just talking smack. :)
amd needs to release all their big guns now
The SuperPI shows very unrealistic difference between Intel and AMD. It's the most stupid benchmark which I know. It's almost the same when you try to compare Intel vs. AMD in Everest CPU AES test.Quote:
Originally Posted by hokiealumnus
Very true, 12% on a cach dependent bench with three times the cach. Not amazing ipc but if they get say 6-10% ipc, 200mhz clock all with a bit less power then AMD could still be completive at the low-medium end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
To the fanboys, Please don't hype this for AMD. You set expectations of greatness and when they do a good job and get a good bump it looks disappointing.
SP is single thread & its a well known fact that intel cpu quad does single thread better most of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by hokiealumnus
It's a C0, the C1 revision is supposed to clock much higher :)
Fair enough. Let's compare multi-threaded. At my summer overclocks (9500 @ 2.4GHz and E4400 @ 3.1GHz), when Folding@Home with the SMP client (on project 2665 if you're familiar with F@H), the C2D beats the Phenom by right at 100 points per day. When taken in context with the amount the Phenom produces (~1250ppd with that project), the C2D beats it out by 8%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
Alternatively, on a different project (2653), the 9500 reverses that and beats the C2D by 100ppd. Unfortunately, the average production is higher (~1850ppd), so even when the quad core beats out the dual, it's only by 5.4%.
This could be an incorrect assumption, but I'd think having two more cores crunching should out-do a 700MHz overclock advantage. When you consider a Q6600 can OC just as far (and more) as my E4400, Intel is just superior when it comes to crunching.
All of this is not to denigrate AMD, just prove my earlier point that they have work to do. I want AMD to come out ahead. I like their product and their company. I especially like that their unlocked multipliers don't cost over a thousand bucks. This 9500 build is the first AMD for me and it has made me a fan; I like the 'feel' of it, if you will and believe it or not, I like the challenge of their overclock even if it's not as far as I'd like. They've got their work cut out for them...and I'll be rooting for them all the way! :yepp:
How about everyday tasking which more people are likey to be doing as i dont run any of the apps you just mentioned .Quote:
Originally Posted by hokiealumnus
Best I can think of right now to quantify "every day" would be the WinRar benchmark. There are obviously other factors in this bench besides CPU, but it's all I can think of. The C2D system in my sig @ 3.0GHz (haven't run it at 3.1) gets 647KB/s and it takes 2min34sec to process 100MB. The 9500 @ 2.4GHz gets 505KB/s and it takes 3min18sec to process 100MB.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
BTW folks, now I'm just answering questions. I feel the need to reiterate I like my AMD rig. :buddies:
Ohhh... I think something is really wrong with your AMD rig. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by hokiealumnus
hmmm
Heh, ok...that definitely says something is wrong. Unfortunately I have no idea what it is. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by ea6gka
Running @ 240 x 10, HT Multi @ 9x (highest), RAM @ 398MHz & 4-4-4-15. Moderately fresh install of XP Pro, nothing on it really except anti-virus (avast), firewall (zone alarm) & F@H. :shrug:
tlb fix?
finally phenom has broken 20s Pie
http://www.itocp.com/attachments/mon....jpg.thumb.jpg
Not that it matters thatī much, also nice seeing it done at around 266 bus ;)
Unfortunately not. The TLB is enabled in BIOS. I also downloaded the TLB fix by sam2008 just in case XP SP3 did something it shouldn't have. Other than benching, the system is running optimally. See this SS for how it's set up (the fold just got under way b/c I restarted to verify BIOS settings and to raise my OC back up to 2.5GHz).Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectrobozo
Sorry OP, I'm done derailing, many apologies. If anyone sees anything out of whack, please PM me and let me know. :shrug:
sounds like single threaded winrar benchmarkQuote:
Originally Posted by hokiealumnus
That explains it! I have an old version of Winrar. Very good observation; I didn't even know they had implemented that. With the OC reduced to 2.4GHz (PWM was getting toasty), it now gets 1655KB/s & processes 100MB in 1min1sec. By comparison, the C2D rig gets 1,253KB/s & processes 100MB in 1min20sec. Thanks for pointing that out! :up: Now to figure out why F@H doesn't crunch better...Quote:
Originally Posted by blaH
OP I must apologize again, this was not meant to turn into a derailment. If you want, feel free to have an admin delete my posts from Winrar on; I won't be offended. While SP might be moot b/c of its single-threadedness (no, that's not a word), I still stand by the F@H issues. Carry on. ;)
That sounds better,... I got 1882kbs @ 2.9ghz 2400mhz NB on the 9850BE
For AMD, that's good, (even though it is a pretty pointless benchmark IMO :p:). I'm looking at CPUZ though and hoping that either it is misreading the voltage or that the retail chip will not need such a huge amount, 1.568V :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oc-Ghost
hokiealumnus, as far as F@H being slower on AMD compared to intel, I've heard it said that it is because F@H uses the intel compiler, and the intel compiler just simply isn't as 'friendly' to AMD CPUs. Now that's just what I've heard someplace, don't know if it is true or totally way off :shrug: Probably more due to architecture design differences probably, I know the A64 did better at F@H than the P4 did, by quite a bit (though netburst just sucked overall lol) because of that.
That chip is overclocked, i think the link tells you, but maybe i read it somewhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
I wonder where they got that sample from. Can even be an separated model from binning, which would explain the high voltage requirements for 45nm.
Super Pi 1m does not say much about stability, but a +10% boost in that benchmark looks good.
The results in terms of voltages and frequencies look similar to 9950BE's on the edge. Good to see the chip can handle high voltages at 45nm. I think they did not look for the lowest possible voltages they simply started at 1.225V.
It's a nice glimpse, but to reason anything beside an speed boost in super-pi out of this preview is useless.
SuperPi needs to DIE. Vanilla FP instructions are used about as much in real applications that are processor intensive as nails are to build a space shuttle. SP doesn't use MMX, SSE, or 3DNow. It's straight ghetto x87.
Hi, hokiealumnus Well I'm quite bussy with folding and I can tell you that the multi core client for folding, isn't doing much intercore communication.Quote:
Originally Posted by hokiealumnus
It's not like the ps3 client that does do a litle bit of work on each spu.
the folding multicoreclient behaves like a client that can work on a grid of computers, so it doens't need the big intercore bandwith (it's not like the intel intercore communication is as slow as ethernet ;)) That's why folding smp needs the MPI service for multicore! So phenom will only outperform Core 2 if folding would implement somthing like the ps3 core, but that doens't make much sens for a normal x86 cpu.
greetz