Bit-tech AMD six core review

[Chumbucket843]

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."

[spicypixel]

Seems to me some of these multi threaded apps are more like hard coded dual/quadcore apps.

[GeorgeStorm]

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.

[Chumbucket843]

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.

[clayton]

I would use UT3 instead of Crysis.

[Chad Boga]

I can see why AMD have stated they have no plans to bring Hex cores to the desktop anytime soon.

[Smartidiot89]

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...

[saaya]

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...

[RaZz!]

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

[Jaco]

guys , these boards don't have HT3 yet . Don't jump to conclusions.

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

[Smartidiot89]

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

[BulldogPO]

Very disapointing results
Need more testing...

[N19h7m4r3]

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

[EniGmA1987]

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.

[FlanK3r]

and some OC?

[grimREEFER]

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.

[Karolis]

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?

[gosh]

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

[Oberon]

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.

[terrace215]

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.

[GAR]

At this point, anything more than 4 cores is not needed for a desktop pc.

[perkam]

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

[N19h7m4r3]

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 :/

[Zucker2k]

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.

[Oberon]

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.