350Mhz HTT on Phenom II reached.

[kemo]

^^^^^ @Toppc
You forgot to cover SM2/SM3/CPU score on that phenom run :P: , i can tell you that for 4269 / 3943 / 5682 = 10711 ... using 3D mark clac i should see a 1 at the end not a zero or it is a rounding error , i wont call it a fake coz it might be just 10710 ...

[Lastviking]

IN MSI 9600GSO 512MB 256bit

intel i7 920




amd x4 940

Hello thx for the info , i did see something dont forget to change your NB clocks , 1800 is very slow use 2400mhz+ if you can you will get more score in 3dmark

[SkullCracka]

^^^^^ @Toppc
You forgot to cover SM2/SM3/CPU score on that phenom run :P: , i can tell you that for 4269 / 3943 / 5682 = 10711 ... using 3D mark clac i should see a 1 at the end not a zero or it is a rounding error , i wont call it a fake coz it might be just 10710 ...

the one your talking about is a i920 intel run with 9600nvidia gpu.

so no reason to cover those right?

10k @ 4.2ghz hmmmm interesting.

so like i and and many others allready know. its about total platform bandwidth. allways has allways will be. matched parts just work better.



its funny. up untill nehalem. 9770 and lower cpus were the be all of cpu's. now they all talk as if anything other then i940 or i965 are junk . LMAO

i think this is what seperates those that know and those that just are google, forum read it, and its true junkies.

[roofsniper]

toppc im a little confused. are you saying that a phenom II where only the cpu multi is changed will give equal gaming performance as a higher oced i7 even with the same gpus? the i7 got a higher cpu score but the phenom II managed to get a higher gpu score with the aid of a phenom II? and in the end the overall 3d mark scores were just about the same. http://www.breakthelimit.net/coolice...3d06-17754.PNG i see coolice managed to get a slightly higher cpu score with a phenom II at 4ghz.

got anything to say or you just letting us figure it out?

[Smalltimer]

toppc im a little confused. are you saying that a phenom II where only the cpu multi is changed will give equal gaming performance as a higher oced i7 even with the same gpus? the i7 got a higher cpu score but the phenom II managed to get a higher gpu score with the aid of a phenom II? and in the end the overall 3d mark scores were just about the same. http://www.breakthelimit.net/coolice...3d06-17754.PNG i see coolice managed to get a slightly higher cpu score with a phenom II at 4ghz.

got anything to say or you just letting us figure it out?

Without sounding like the pessimist, I would agree with some of the questions raised in this argument. Ever since the introduction of the AMD demo a few weeks back we have seen a number of "apparent" benchmarks, Super Pi claims and a variety of other(so called) leaks. But the consistency of the information given has been so sporatic, that its very difficult to ever make any solid conclusions.

All the signs seem to point at fraudulent posts and claims.

It just makes the entire thing that much harder to swallow now.
Just who is telling the truth at this point?

[SkullCracka]

yes roof becuase you can up all the multis seperately no reason fot high core clock. cpu,nb,ht,ram are still going to run at there rated or overclocked speed. the bandwidth will still be there. so gone are the days of high core clock being needed.

so up up the multi till you wont boot check ram nb and htt. then slowly up the volts and htt. with a unlocked cpu that is. sur eyou allready know this but just for general info for those that dont know. also for those that dont know keep ht below or at same speed of the nb. happy clocking to all.

[roofsniper]

Without sounding like the pessimist, I would agree with some of the questions raised in this argument. Ever since the introduction of the AMD demo a few weeks back we have seen a number of "apparent" benchmarks, Super Pi claims and a variety of other(so called) leaks. But the consistency of the information given has been so sporatic, that its very difficult to ever make any solid conclusions.

All the signs seem to point at fraudulent posts and claims.

It just makes the entire thing that much harder to swallow now.
Just who is telling the truth at this point?

yes there were many benchmarks at first and many turned out to be fake. but as we are nearing release we are seeing constancy and some benchmarks match with others making us believe those are the true results. as far as this goes its been done in the past that a cpu with a lower cpu score can actually manage to get higher gpu scores. if this is the case it might be one of those things where even tho we have seen benchmarks where i7 beats out phenom II phenom II might end up being a better gaming cpu. notice what i just said is speculation and im not basing it on any facts but the 3d mark result is interesting nonetheless.

[Smalltimer]

if this is the case it might be one of those things where even tho we have seen benchmarks where i7 beats out phenom II phenom II might end up being a better gaming cpu. notice what i just said is speculation and im not basing it on any facts but the 3d mark result is interesting nonetheless.

If the Phenom II price is right, I would have no doubts it could quickly become the ideal gaming/desktop solution. - I won't pretend to know what AMD is thinking(I don't follow roadmaps), but it would make sense for them to pursue this position.

I'm still waiting for some hardcore high HTT/Overclocks to gather what the Phenom II can do in rendering. As I mentioned before, I would have no problems grabbing a pair of PII's in a mini-cluster if it falls in the same cost area as aCore i7. - I'm almost certain 8 Phenom II cores would outperform a Core i7(OC'd or not).

In fact, last night I dreamed of running a pair of Phenom II's @ 4.5Ghz under water under my desk.

[dinos22]

IN MSI 9600GSO 512MB 256bit

intel i7 920

http://www.coolaler.com.tw/toppc/96GSO512/06.JPG


amd x4 940

http://www.coolaler.com.tw/toppc/X4940/96GSO.JPG

can you reduce the clocks on Intel Core i7 920 CPU to 3.8GHz


you sure you are running the GFX card at the same clocks eek

4.2GHz nehalem - 10814
3.8GHz deneb - 10711

[Rammsteiner]

Very impressive

Although, then again FM benchies it ain't everything, I think that's a damn nice result

[Hornet331]

hmm gpu score is higher but cpu score is a lot lower. There are ~100 points less on SM2.0/3.0 scores. Wonder where that comes from.

[MadDias]

hmm gpu score is higher but cpu score is a lot lower. There are ~100 points less on SM2.0/3.0 scores. Wonder where that comes from.

didn´t we see the same when b3 phenoms came out?
b3´s clocked at the same speed as core2q´s got alot lower cpu scores in 06 but gpu scores were higher. so in the end the 3dmarks were equal or even a little higher on the phenom side.
too bad that 3dmark06 doesn´t give u an impression of real gaming performance.

[Macadamia]

hmm gpu score is higher but cpu score is a lot lower. There are ~100 points less on SM2.0/3.0 scores. Wonder where that comes from.

In general, Phenom kept up like that.

But I dunno, it seems like HWBox is getting... wronger and wronger?


p/s: CONFIRMED. HWBox performance is waaaay borked.

Their 3Ghz performance CPU score = 4136

If we consider ideal linear scaling to 3.8Ghz, we get only 5238. That's still WAY below Toppc's score (5682).


Probably HWBox has a 10% deficit on any compute intensive benchmarks?


pp/s: Could be Vista SP1, looking into performance impact as of now.

[demonkevy666]

In general, Phenom kept up like that.

But I dunno, it seems like HWBox is getting... wronger and wronger?


p/s: CONFIRMED. HWBox performance is waaaay borked.

Their 3Ghz performance CPU score = 4136

If we consider ideal linear scaling to 3.8Ghz, we get only 5238. That's still WAY below Toppc's score (5682).


Probably HWBox has a 10% deficit on any compute intensive benchmarks?


pp/s: Could be Vista SP1, looking into performance impact as of now.

that 10% being applied to intel's quads too ?

[Cybercat]

Any idea if this is expected to be common? I.E. can phenoms clock with HT better now? If so then I may not wait as long for an AM3 BE to come around.

This.

If I can get ~260 HTT on a 920 I'll be happy.

[roofsniper]

In general, Phenom kept up like that.

But I dunno, it seems like HWBox is getting... wronger and wronger?


p/s: CONFIRMED. HWBox performance is waaaay borked.

Their 3Ghz performance CPU score = 4136

If we consider ideal linear scaling to 3.8Ghz, we get only 5238. That's still WAY below Toppc's score (5682).


Probably HWBox has a 10% deficit on any compute intensive benchmarks?


pp/s: Could be Vista SP1, looking into performance impact as of now.

actually i compared some of their benchmarks with some benchmarks from others i have seen. like coolice for example. the 3d mark one was the only one i found different if i had a benchmark to compare it to. their wprime one is legit although that benchmark is useless anyway. also their cinebench is legit too. maybe if they create another thread you can ask them to take a better look at the 3d mark scores since it seems their scores are lower than the other ones i have seen.

[coolice]

IN MSI 9600GSO 512MB 256bit

intel i7 920




amd x4 940

seem like 12/09 bios is better

edited:my bad,cpu score are higher with nv card

[dinos22]

In general, Phenom kept up like that.

But I dunno, it seems like HWBox is getting... wronger and wronger?


p/s: CONFIRMED. HWBox performance is waaaay borked.

Their 3Ghz performance CPU score = 4136

If we consider ideal linear scaling to 3.8Ghz, we get only 5238. That's still WAY below Toppc's score (5682).


Probably HWBox has a 10% deficit on any compute intensive benchmarks?


pp/s: Could be Vista SP1, looking into performance impact as of now.

it IS vista

[roofsniper]

seem like 12/09 bios is better

i hate both of you guys.

[kemo]

the one your talking about is a i920 intel run with 9600nvidia gpu.

so no reason to cover those right?

10k @ 4.2ghz hmmmm interesting.

so like i and and many others allready know. its about total platform bandwidth. allways has allways will be. matched parts just work better.



its funny. up untill nehalem. 9770 and lower cpus were the be all of cpu's. now they all talk as if anything other then i940 or i965 are junk . LMAO

i think this is what seperates those that know and those that just are google, forum read it, and its true junkies.

Nop i am talking about PII and as dinos22 pointed score should have been 10711 , nothing more ,, look here

[bondhahnmrt85]

Very impressive for non BE CPU's
Can you test with default multiplier at 350MHz HTT = 5250MHz with subzero cooling definitely

[Oese]

i wonder how high the nb will clock probably. any info on this already? I've seen shots with 2,6ghz but dunno if those clocks are stable.. because with my 9750 that has mainly been holding me back using cnq during 24/7 use, whereas htt300 worked here on agena also:



i wonder if i could reach ht3.0/ht3.1 speeds (2,8ghz/3,0ghz) with nb/imc?

[biohead]

could be that the SM2/SM3/CPU scores are rounded, but the unrounded numbers are used to generate the final score.

[diekul]

EDIT: damn.. should use F5 some more...

[Lightman]

i wonder how high the nb will clock probably. any info on this already? I've seen shots with 2,6ghz but dunno if those clocks are stable.. because with my 9750 that has mainly been holding me back using cnq during 24/7 use, whereas htt300 worked here on agena also:



i wonder if i could reach ht3.0/ht3.1 speeds (2,8ghz/3,0ghz) with nb/imc?

It was stated somewhere in this thread that max. for this particular CPU sample is 26xxMHz NB clock.
2.6GHz NB was stable.