2793Originally Posted by saaya
--
2793
--
Faceman
AMD now a days belongs in the budget bins, no way they should be pricing their products close to intel, when they perform like this......the amd x2 is a cpu from 2005 and the phenoms barely beat it, thats sad, the only way for amd to stay in the game is to get in the budget bin and stop trying to make high end cpu's if they are not high end.
They must be, Dell will be using them in Optiplex systems (mass produced office PCs).
Intel i7 920 C0 @ 3.67GHz
ASUS 6T Deluxe
Powercolor 7970 @ 1050/1475
12GB GSkill Ripjaws
Antec 850W TruePower Quattro
50" Full HD PDP
Red Cosmos 1000
exactlywhat about 2k6 cpu score?
in games i guess there is no difference whatsoever to dualcores.
which makes me wonder... why should people buy a tripple core?
in games a dualcore is enough, and if you use apps that DO use more than 2 cores, you want a quadcore and not tripple core... lol
"Nonsense cpus from AMD" not a bad slogan for marketing
When i'm being paid i always do my job through.
that's what I was thinking. patch or no patch I've seen A64 better.Did anyone expect any different? It is just Phenom X4 with one less core after all, same architecture otherwise basically
...and got raped by AMD in every other benchmark...lol
Intel has always been king of SuperPI and will remain as such. Too bad that even it is some 60% faster in SuperPI, it doesn't really mean it is 60% faster overall, let alone in servers where scaling is more important.
it is sad to see more pathetic stuff coming from AMD
---
---
"Generally speaking, CMOS power consumption is the result of charging and discharging gate capacitors. The charge required to fully charge the gate grows with the voltage; charge times frequency is current. Voltage times current is power. So, as you raise the voltage, the current consumption grows linearly, and the power consumption quadratically, at a fixed frequency. Once you reach the frequency limit of the chip without raising the voltage, further frequency increases are normally proportional to voltage. In other words, once you have to start raising the voltage, power consumption tends to rise with the cube of frequency."
+++
1st
CPU - 2600K(4.4ghz)/Mobo - AsusEvo/RAM - 8GB1866mhz/Cooler - VX/Gfx - Radeon 6950/PSU - EnermaxModu87+700W
+++
2nd
TRUltra-120Xtreme /// EnermaxModu82+(625w) /// abitIP35pro/// YorkfieldQ9650-->3906mhz(1.28V) /// 640AAKS & samsung F1 1T &samsung F1640gb&F1 RAID 1T /// 4gigs of RAM-->520mhz /// radeon 4850(700mhz)-->TRHR-03 GT
++++
3rd
Windsor4200(11x246-->2706mhz-->1.52v) : Zalman9500 : M2N32-SLI Deluxe : 2GB ddr2 SuperTalent-->451mhz : seagate 7200.10 320GB :7900GT(530/700) : Tagan530w
re SuperPI: I wonder what would happen if a PI calculation program were written and optimized for K10 instead, and calculated PI faster by a landslide. Would people then use this as an industry standard benchmark as well?
Pathetic? Sure intel would have done Tri-Core if they could. They couldn't. Sure the K10 is a joke, but Tri-core isn't.it is sad to see more pathetic stuff coming from AMD
TLB patch averages about 20% slower results... on quads.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/13741/4
I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but it seems to have been overlooked. I doubt that will help on super pi, but on 3dmark it should make an impact.
Again, i dont understand why they tested with the patch on, when by the time these are public.. there will be no tlb errata, or very few available that are b2.
" Business is Binary, your either a 1 or a 0, alive or dead." - Gary Winston ^^
Asus rampage III formula,i7 980xm, H70, Silverstone Ft02, Gigabyte Windforce 580 GTX SLI, Corsair AX1200, intel x-25m 160gb, 2 x OCZ vertex 2 180gb, hp zr30w, 12gb corsair vengeance
Rig 2
i7 980x ,h70, Antec Lanboy Air, Samsung md230x3 ,Saphhire 6970 Xfired, Antec ax1200w, x-25m 160gb, 2 x OCZ vertex 2 180gb,12gb Corsair Vengence MSI Big Bang Xpower
Amazing to see the amount of dumb responses, when several people have allready pointed out that the TLB fix hasn't been disabled.
This chip will be amazing value, and intel will have nothing against it.
Owning the high end is not everything.
Why would Intel need a tri-core? It's not like their current lineup isn't cluttered enough already. Their MCM approach means they don't have to 'salvage' broken quads into tri cores, since each quad is made up of two perfectly working duals.
AMD is only doing this for financial reasons, it's much better to get something for a tri-core than to just throw the defective quads away.
How do you know the chip will be amazing value when the official prices haven't even been released?
I'm sure it'll be priced competitively against C2Ds, but it doesn't outperform them either, even in multithreading. 2 faster cores = 3 slower cores.
Because they will be cheaper than the quad cores.
And the quad cores are allready priced to compete with intel.
This means intels dual cores will be priced against amd's triple cores.
And this may be a battle intel can not possibly win, depending on what apps you buy your CPU for of course.
If they're going to be cheap; i may get one for my mediacenter/gameserver rig
Rig 1:
Intel E4300 @ 3Ghz - 2gb OCZ PC2-8500 - Asus P5N-e SLI - Club3d 9600gt @ 750/1950/1100Mhz - Vista 64
Rig 2:
Intel celeron L420 @ 2.6Ghz- 2gb OCZ PC2-6400 - Asus P5B - XFX 8800GS 384mb - XP 32
Laptop
Acer Aspire 3610, Pentium M725 OC @ 2.23Ghz - 2gb PC2-3200 - crappy Intel I915 gfx
I don't think AMD will be able to sell them as cheap as they should though.
Posted by duploxxx
I am sure JF is relaxed and smiling these days with there intended launch schedule. SNB Xeon servers on the other hand....
Posted by gallag
there yo go bringing intel into a amd thread again lol, if that was someone droping a dig at amd you would be crying like a girl.qft!
You make it sound like Phenom tri-core is superior to a C2D, when actually its not. A Phenom 8600 is roughly equal to an E6750 in multithreaded performance, and gets slaughtered in single threaded performance. Hence, C2D is the faster processor overall.
Also, by the time it is actually released, a Phenom 8600 will be competing against faster Wolfdale C2Ds, not Conroes. AMD will have to price tri-cores below $150 to compete IMO. We will see when it launches I guess.
I'd rather have a Intel Dual Core than this.
Not only that, but the wolfdales will almost certainly use much less power and will be much better overclockers on top of offering better performance on a majority of applications. AMD will have to price these below the cheapest Wolfdale, well below.
are you considering the clockspeed differenceat all?? The K10 core is a generous advancement of the k8, just not as much as we'd hoped.
Yeah, it'll most likely end up competing against Allendales and the Wolfdale 3M refresh, I think 3GHz+ Wolfdales would be a step above it in performance.
Sort of off topic but how do apps handle 3 cores. For example if something is optimized for 4 cores, does it use all 3 or just 2?
A design that offers a 15% IPC increase but tops out at a 25% lower clock is not an advancement. Now of course phenom offers double the cores but considering the 4X4 offers equal or better performance and came out back in 2006 it's hard to consider the Phenom at this point anything but a step backward.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=176857
Last edited by Periander6; 02-19-2008 at 05:35 PM.
Problem is this is not the case: the Cinebench score shows that the multiprocessor speed-up is only about 2,66, considering phenoms scale very well in multiprocessor (around 3,85 for 4x cores in Cinebench) this is clearly a step backwards. I wonder if it's the TLB-patch causing this slowdown...Did anyone expect any different? It is just Phenom X4 with one less core after all, same architecture otherwise basically
The K10 architecture is a step forward. The clock speeds are an issue, yes, but blame that on the manufacturing, not the architecture.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks