Brisbane Testing in progress...

[FghtinIrshNvrDi]

We know, but we always like to test clock/clock what it looks like.

Ryan

[Fred_Pohl]

[Epsilon84]

We know, but we always like to test clock/clock what it looks like.

Ryan

We already know C2D is ~20% faster clock for clock. Are you really expecting anything different compared to previous C2D vs X2 comparisons?

[Nanometer]

Yes, because it seems AMD changed more than the processing size.

[RimRam]

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/8...ench31gkz5.jpg

Is that Cinebech in winxp 64?

[FLMJIGGY]

Nice that fact it can undervolt soo much. sweet!

[Lightman]

In my book this has the same importance like overclocking:
Lowest stable voltage for the stock frequency (2.6 GHz):



I’m off to bed

Can you confirm BIOS vCore settings??
I suspect it's 1.2V, but who cares if temperatures under load are so low!! Barely 10C more than ilde .


@FrankR if you want 3.6GHz on air from K8 then you need to wait for G2 rev. AMD promised new transistor design on 65nm after 3 months from initial production. I think most of initial G1 shipments anyway will go to OEMs. Now we should chase for 14 week older chip than 0635 which should be 065x.

[freeloader]

We already know C2D is ~20% faster clock for clock. Are you really expecting anything different compared to previous C2D vs X2 comparisons?

Well in the Cinebench it's only 13%. Is this just an abnomally?

[Lightman]

Well in the Cinebench it's only 13%. Is this just an abnomally?

No! Cinebench is intensively using x87 FPU for computations and AMD FPU is very strong at this ;]. Besides I suspect Fred did his bench in XP x64, in x32 difference should be even smaller!!

[w0mbat]

I would like to see a competition between a 3GHz 65nm K8 and a 3GHz 90nm K8. Maybe on the same Board and with the same RAM. Then we can see if its more than just a Die shrink.

[kl0012]

Besides I suspect Fred did his bench in XP x64, in x32 difference should be even smaller!!

I suppose it was Cinebench 9.5 x32 edition. x64 edition should look like this:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...86&postcount=4
Look at the title.

[breakfromyou]

oh geez. thats crazy. 2.6 GHz at just under 1.1v!

and to think i need 1.55v for 2.6 GHz :\

[Lightman]

I suppose it was Cinebench 9.5 x32 edition. x64 edition should look like this:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...86&postcount=4
Look at the title.

Thanks for correction .

[wonderwall]

Did you test SPI 1M?

[FLMJIGGY]

he's sleeping. tmrw....ssshhhhhh don't wake him up

[w0mbat]

You got it backwards. C2D is stronger in 32-bit, so the difference would be larger (this is because macro-ops fusion is not available for C2D under 64-bit mode and allows the gap to narrow).

The C2D was tested in 32Bit!

[Lightman]

You got it backwards. C2D is stronger in 32-bit, so the difference would be larger (this is because macro-ops fusion is not available for C2D under 64-bit mode and allows the gap to narrow).

Yes and no! If you compare C2D 32bit vs 64bit latter still will be faster but speedup is smaller than for A64 going from 32bit to 64bit.
My point (wrongly assumed) was that Fred used 64bit when Nedjo used 32bit version. Now if both have done tests in 64bit then gap would be smaller

[w0mbat]

I think ur writing skills are bad, not my reading skills. Aber hallo!

[Lightman]

Actually, that's simply not the case:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...o-64bit_6.html

It depends on the application. Some gain performance under 64-bit and some lose some. Cinebench is faster under 32-bit for C2D in some parts of the test and slower in others.

My own experience with an E6600 @ 3.2GHz is that there is no signficant difference under 32-bit and 64-bit with that application (less than 5% measurable).

Yep! C4D Shading is always slower on 64bit due to some reasons (probably drivers not fully optimized), but we was comparing CPU speed which means RENDERING and for this I was right. C2D is faster in 64bit mode when rendering!
I put my first post you quoted wrongly, so I was thinking right but writing it down not so good .
On the other hand your assumptions about C2D performance are correct as well.

Forget about small things, here are more important things to discuss.

WHERE is NEDJO?? We want more benches!

[w0mbat]

Yeah, sure there Mark Twain.

Ok, lets see how good u can write german

[informal]

Brent,please leave Conroe talk out of this nice discussion.It's about Brisbane and overclocking,not about 64 bit Conroe performance.And ,no ,I don't care who started it.

Nedjo used FX74 (air)cooler for this bench so the temperatures are very good(low that is).The vent spins at 6K.If only he had some other mobo for this test.But it's good we have this review,nice to see such a low volts at 2.6Ghz from first gen. of 65nm process.

[w0mbat]

You don't want to go there. How many post-doctorate degrees (PhDs and MDs) do you have?

In a pissing contest, I guarantee you that I can piss further.

Ok, u can piss further


@Topic: I want benches!

[Nedjo]

OK!
Here are Sandra results @ 3100 MHz
CPU

MMedia:

Memory:

Memory is working on 1033 MHz.

[w0mbat]

nice

[Fred_Pohl]

Is that Cinebech in winxp 64?

WinXP32

BTW, it bears mention that multi-threaded Cinebench is one of K8's strongest BMs vs C2D (accounting for the relatively small difference) and that air-cooled CPUs do not idle at 10C lower than ambient air. Brisbane certainly appears to be just a dumb shrink and there is nothing surprising about the performance or temps as measured thus far. IIRC the 2.6GHz screen shot at 1.1Vcore was just that, a screen shot. It in no way implies that one could actually run a Brisbane at such low Vcore and 1.5V was needed for ~3GHz.