Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 118

Thread: Bit-tech AMD six core review

  1. #1
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Bloomfield
    Posts
    1,968

    Bit-tech AMD six core review

    http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...-2434-review/8
    "Clearly, AMD has done a great job engineering the Opteron 2435, as these six-core CPUs have a very similar thermal profile and power consumption to that of a pair of identical frequency quad-core Opterons. Given the extra performance, the six-core models provide in certain applications, this is no mean feat."

  2. #2
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    299
    Seems to me some of these multi threaded apps are more like hard coded dual/quadcore apps.

  3. #3
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    762
    Read the review earlier today
    Was disappointing tbh
    Really hoping they would really perform, its not that they did badly,
    I guess it depends to how much they actually end up costing.
    And the price of the boards etc.

  4. #4
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Bloomfield
    Posts
    1,968
    i dont see why they dont ramp up their clocks to use as much power as the nehalem machine. most of these benchmarks seem to like clocks more than cores anyway.

  5. #5
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,111
    I would use UT3 instead of Crysis.


    All systems sold. Will be back after Sandy Bridge!

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,052
    I can see why AMD have stated they have no plans to bring Hex cores to the desktop anytime soon.

  7. #7
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sweden, Linköping
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by Chad Boga View Post
    I can see why AMD have stated they have no plans to bring Hex cores to the desktop anytime soon.
    Would be way cool to have a Hexa-Core CPU but it's no good on a regular Desktop so I second that...
    SweClockers.com

    CPU: Phenom II X4 955BE
    Clock: 4200MHz 1.4375v
    Memory: Dominator GT 2x2GB 1600MHz 6-6-6-20 1.65v
    Motherboard: ASUS Crosshair IV Formula
    GPU: HD 5770

  8. #8
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Shipai
    Posts
    34,549
    mmmmhhh i wonder how handpicked that chip was, low current draw/tdp wise...
    6cores at almost the same tdp/current draw as 4 at the same speed just doesnt really add up...

  9. #9
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,251
    Quote Originally Posted by clayton View Post
    I would use UT3 instead of Crysis.
    yeah, idd, i don't understand why they picked crysis. there isn't even a difference between dualcores and quadcores in it... kind of pointless to bench it on a hexacore if you ask me.

    the overall performance is disappointing though

    however, can't imagine that the performance increase of 4 cores (going from 2x4 to 2x6) is that low.

    i'd like to see a hexacore in 3dmark06 and vantage with (quad)fire/(quad)sli
    1. Asus P5Q-E / Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 @~3612 MHz (8,5x425) / 2x2GB OCZ Platinum XTC (PC2-8000U, CL5) / EVGA GeForce GTX 570 / Crucial M4 128GB, WD Caviar Blue 640GB, WD Caviar SE16 320GB, WD Caviar SE 160GB / be quiet! Dark Power Pro P7 550W / Thermaltake Tsunami VA3000BWA / LG L227WT / Teufel Concept E Magnum 5.1 // SysProfile


    2. Asus A8N-SLI / AMD Athlon 64 4000+ @~2640 MHz (12x220) / 1024 MB Corsair CMX TwinX 3200C2, 2.5-3-3-6 1T / Club3D GeForce 7800GT @463/1120 MHz / Crucial M4 64GB, Hitachi Deskstar 40GB / be quiet! Blackline P5 470W

  10. #10
    version 2.0
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Flanders
    Posts
    3,864
    guys , these boards don't have HT3 yet . Don't jump to conclusions.

    Quote Originally Posted by bit-tech.net
    As the Hyper-Transport bus is used for all communications between the CPU and the rest of the system, this should yield a substantial performance increase in all applications. Unfortunately, as no dual-processor Socket F motherboards support Hyper-Transport 3.0, the Opteron 2435 is forced to run at 1GHz. Hyper-Transport 3.0-compatible motherboards based on a new AMD chipset are due for release in a couple of months

  11. #11
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sweden, Linköping
    Posts
    2,033
    Quote Originally Posted by saaya View Post
    mmmmhhh i wonder how handpicked that chip was, low current draw/tdp wise...
    6cores at almost the same tdp/current draw as 4 at the same speed just doesnt really add up...
    AMD said themselves that Istanbul(6-Core) would have almost the same as a Shanghai(4-Core) clock-to-clock. Don't ask me how thou
    SweClockers.com

    CPU: Phenom II X4 955BE
    Clock: 4200MHz 1.4375v
    Memory: Dominator GT 2x2GB 1600MHz 6-6-6-20 1.65v
    Motherboard: ASUS Crosshair IV Formula
    GPU: HD 5770

  12. #12
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Finland, Eura
    Posts
    1,744
    Very disapointing results
    Need more testing...


    http://mato78.com - Finnish PC Hardware news & reviews
    BulldogPO @ Twitter


  13. #13
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Curragh.
    Posts
    1,294
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaco View Post
    guys , these boards don't have HT3 yet . Don't jump to conclusions.
    Also the bios's are still very new also.

    There could still be some good gains from these chips.

    I'll be hopefull

  14. #14
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,136
    You could build a nice little video encoding machine with these A board and two 6-core CPUs for under $1400 is pretty nice. Cant wait till the chipset for these CPUs is released, that should bring nice performance improvements especially in quad CPU setups.
    Rig 1:
    ASUS P8Z77-V
    Intel i5 3570K @ 4.75GHz
    16GB of Team Xtreme DDR-2666 RAM (11-13-13-35-2T)
    Nvidia GTX 670 4GB SLI

    Rig 2:
    Asus Sabertooth 990FX
    AMD FX-8350 @ 5.6GHz
    16GB of Mushkin DDR-1866 RAM (8-9-8-26-1T)
    AMD 6950 with 6970 bios flash

    Yamakasi Catleap 2B overclocked to 120Hz refresh rate
    Audio-GD FUN DAC unit w/ AD797BRZ opamps
    Sennheiser PC350 headset w/ hero mod

  15. #15
    I am Xtreme FlanK3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Czech republic
    Posts
    6,804
    and some OC?
    ROG Power PCs - Intel and AMD
    CPUs:i9-7900X, i9-9900K, i7-6950X, i7-5960X, i7-8086K, i7-8700K, 4x i7-7700K, i3-7350K, 2x i7-6700K, i5-6600K, R7-2700X, 4x R5 2600X, R5 2400G, R3 1200, R7-1800X, R7-1700X, 3x AMD FX-9590, 1x AMD FX-9370, 4x AMD FX-8350,1x AMD FX-8320,1x AMD FX-8300, 2x AMD FX-6300,2x AMD FX-4300, 3x AMD FX-8150, 2x AMD FX-8120 125 and 95W, AMD X2 555 BE, AMD x4 965 BE C2 and C3, AMD X4 970 BE, AMD x4 975 BE, AMD x4 980 BE, AMD X6 1090T BE, AMD X6 1100T BE, A10-7870K, Athlon 845, Athlon 860K,AMD A10-7850K, AMD A10-6800K, A8-6600K, 2x AMD A10-5800K, AMD A10-5600K, AMD A8-3850, AMD A8-3870K, 2x AMD A64 3000+, AMD 64+ X2 4600+ EE, Intel i7-980X, Intel i7-2600K, Intel i7-3770K,2x i7-4770K, Intel i7-3930KAMD Cinebench R10 challenge AMD Cinebench R15 thread Intel Cinebench R15 thread

  16. #16
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    1,834
    surprisingly a bit slower despite the 2 core advantage.
    though it looks like it would be pretty close to the nehalem if it was clocked higher.
    Last edited by grimREEFER; 07-07-2009 at 10:58 AM.
    DFI P965-S/core 2 quad q6600@3.2ghz/4gb gskill ddr2 @ 800mhz cas 4/xfx gtx 260/ silverstone op650/thermaltake xaser 3 case/razer lachesis

  17. #17
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by saaya View Post
    mmmmhhh i wonder how handpicked that chip was, low current draw/tdp wise...
    6cores at almost the same tdp/current draw as 4 at the same speed just doesnt really add up...
    These Istanbul CPUs are based on a different stepping than other AMDs 45nm CPUs. Couldn't this be the reason?

  18. #18
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    612
    Ehhh, how many threads are applications in the test using?

    Four threads or less, no difference between quads and hexes. More than four and the instanbull starts to shine. if there are heavy load on each thread

    What they should do is to run all tests at once

  19. #19
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by Chumbucket843 View Post
    i dont see why they dont ramp up their clocks to use as much power as the nehalem machine. most of these benchmarks seem to like clocks more than cores anyway.
    Because AMD can't compete on a sheer computation power basis (at least not per core), so they win out in density and power consumption.
    Gaming Box

    Ryzen R7 1700X * ASUS PRIME X370-Pro * 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200 * XFX Radeon RX 480 8GB * Corsair HX620 * 250GB Crucial BX100 * 1TB Seagate 7200.11

    EK Supremacy MX * Swiftech MCR320 * 3x Fractal Venture HP-12 * EK D5 PWM

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,125
    One error in the article, they list the 2435 as having a "75W TDP". Not so. That's AMD's "ACP" number, the TDP for AMD's standard non-SE parts is 115W.

  21. #21
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Burbank, CA
    Posts
    3,808
    At this point, anything more than 4 cores is not needed for a desktop pc.

  22. #22
    Live Long And Overclock
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    14,471
    Quote Originally Posted by terrace215 View Post
    One error in the article, they list the 2435 as having a "75W TDP". Not so. That's AMD's "ACP" number, the TDP for AMD's standard non-SE parts is 115W.
    AMD's official info on the 2435: http://products.amd.com/en-us/OpteronCPUResult.aspx (Yes it is 75W for the Hexa-Core)

    But that wasn't the only error in the article: WHAT ON EARTH are they thinking comparing a $1000 processor with a $1,600 processor.

    The AMD 2435 @ 2.6Ghz and $989 competes with the Xeon X5550 @ 2.66Ghz and $959, not with the W5580 @ 3.2Ghz and $1,600.

    Perkam

  23. #23
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Curragh.
    Posts
    1,294
    Since bit-tech got sold to Custom PC things aren't good anymore.

    The review has alot of mistakes like that.

    Specially if you even look at the amounts of ram used between systems :/

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Haslett, MI
    Posts
    2,221
    Quote Originally Posted by perkam View Post
    AMD's official info on the 2435: http://products.amd.com/en-us/OpteronCPUResult.aspx (Yes it is 75W for the Hexa-Core)

    But that wasn't the only error in the article: WHAT ON EARTH are they thinking comparing a $1000 processor with a $1,600 processor.

    The AMD 2435 @ 2.6Ghz and $989 competes with the Xeon X5550 @ 2.66Ghz and $959, not with the W5580 @ 3.2Ghz and $1,600.

    Perkam
    What on earth are they thinking comparing 12 cores to 8 cores...... nevermind! The x5550 still wins by miles - hell, even the x5482 held it's own.

    This performance was really horrible; this coming from someone with low expectations of these AMD chips. Hopefully HT 3.0 and other tweaks and improvements would radically change the picture or Intel would start raising prices on the highend again.

  25. #25
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    401
    Quote Originally Posted by Zucker2k View Post
    What on earth are they thinking comparing 12 cores to 8 cores...... nevermind! The x5550 still wins by miles - hell, even the x5482 held it's own.

    This performance was really horrible; this coming from someone with low expectations of these AMD chips. Hopefully HT 3.0 and other tweaks and improvements would radically change the picture or Intel would start raising prices on the highend again.

    If you'll notice, something is wrong with their setup. Look at the LightWave benchmark in particular. Supposedly the program is utilizing all 12 cores in the system, yet the performance is one second slower? Definitely not right.

    Also, this CPU was never meant to win out in sheer performance. If it was, there would have been no reason to try to keep it within the same power envelope of an equivalently clocked quad-core setup.
    Gaming Box

    Ryzen R7 1700X * ASUS PRIME X370-Pro * 2x8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200 * XFX Radeon RX 480 8GB * Corsair HX620 * 250GB Crucial BX100 * 1TB Seagate 7200.11

    EK Supremacy MX * Swiftech MCR320 * 3x Fractal Venture HP-12 * EK D5 PWM

Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •