First-ever Dual-core AMD Desktop processor

[ULJarad]

exactly, its just crap, god how easily some people are lead that one very questionable bench is all you've got? i just love this reply 'More or less the same as the single-core approximate since 3DMark is single threaded.' it's about as lame as a geforce4ti4200 reply if you've really got one which i highly suspect you havnt your gonna have to post more than that to persuade us lot at XS

What do you expect? 3DMark is SINGLE-threaded. Intel dual-core with hyperthreading (four logical processors) have NO advantage in single-threaded games. What are you thinking, dual-core will automatically make the game run twice as fast? 3DMark is a single-threaded software, that's all the evidence you need to know dual-core itself won't change the score. Now show ME where you got the idea that dual-core will improve games and/or benchmarks that only support single-threaded processing. PCMark runs much better because there are multi-threaded tests, but 3DMark does not.

...and where did I say these benchmarks were from my computer? Hmm? If you read the thread, it clearly says Hanners (not me) got an email from someone with the results. I have no evidence that it is real but you have no evidence that it is fake. As for the EE beating the FX in a synthetic cpu benchmark, that is wierd, but since those processors are readily available, someone can run them at stock and see what they get in that benchmark.

[ozzimark]

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q1.../index.x?pg=14
the fx-53 is the same thing as a 4000+. it gets 338
the 3.73EE gets 394/327
so if the fx-53 is beating the 3.73EE, the benchmark was run in single thread mode.. but then the dual cores were run multithreaded. i don't like untold and unexplained discrephancies like that

[Jamo]

yes exactly my point i never said multi threading would help apps such as 3d mark, you say you only have that one graph then you make the claim 'More or less the same as the single-core approximate since 3DMark is single threaded.' how do you know that did you get another result too? and about that graph, how is a single threaded CPU ie the FX53 clocked at 2.4ghz gonna get a better score than a multithreaded CPU ie the EE 3.73ghz on a bench that you've just stated shows multithreading at its best???

all of this leads me to believe this is just ficticious crap, i'm sorry but it really is, unless you can give me more evidence than whats in that thread then your gonna have a hard time convincing me and many other XS members that that graph is legit

whats that i just stepped in? oh its the dual core amd results over at EB

[malware]

From the results, it's not clear what were the mboards. If the EE runs on old Intel chipset, and AMD on nFORCE 4 Ultra, it isn't fair enough. There're no bench settings attached to the image too.

Pictures like this we saw on CeBIT, but nothing new...

[ULJarad]

yes exactly my point i never said multi threading would help apps such as 3d mark, you say you only have that one graph then you make the claim 'More or less the same as the single-core approximate since 3DMark is single threaded.' how do you know that did you get another result too?

I made the assumption that equivalent speed, eg 2.4ghz vs 2.4ghz, with with and one without dual-core support, will perform the same in single-threaded software. There are dozens of reviews of the Intel 8xx, eg 2.8ghz, performing the same as a 2.8ghz. 3.2ghz = 3.2ghz. I don't know what else you thought I meant, but I only said a dual-core processor will perform the same as the same ghz processor in single-threaded software. It's safe to say that because Intel proved that.

all of this leads me to believe this is just ficticious crap, i'm sorry but it really is, unless you can give me more evidence than whats in that thread then your gonna have a hard time convincing me and many other XS members that that graph is legit

It's funny, you only have ~400 posts and have been here half a year yet you think of yourself as more of a member than me, but take a second to realize there are EB members here that have been around much longer than you.

It's fun to speculate, but then there's the guy who likes to over everything so he can act like he's the supremist member that knows all. "You don't have rock-solid evidence of what you're saying? I crap on it! Man I kick ass."

[saaya]

It isn't very often something truly, 100% exclusive and drool-worthy drops into my mailbox here, but today just happens to be one of those days - I can now present to you what is the first benchmark of a desktop dual-core AMD processor!

Meet the Athlon 64 X2 4800+


Read

Looks promising.

sorry to disapoint you, but there have been results for weeks already ^^

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=55889

jarad and jamo, please be nice to each other

[ULJarad]

sorry to disapoint you, but there have been results for weeks already ^^

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=55889

Yea, I remember those benches. I think they were even posted on EB's front page. I never said the results I posted were the first and only.

Jamo, can't we all just be friends?

[Jamo]

I made the assumption that equivalent speed, eg 2.4ghz vs 2.4ghz, with with and one without dual-core support, will perform the same in single-threaded software. There are dozens of reviews of the Intel 8xx, eg 2.8ghz, performing the same as a 2.8ghz. 3.2ghz = 3.2ghz. I don't know what else you thought I meant, but I only said a dual-core processor will perform the same as the same ghz processor in single-threaded software. It's safe to say that because Intel proved that.

ok i'll take your point on that that you made an 'asumption' they would perform the same, however this was not made clear in the original reply

It's funny, you only have ~400 posts and have been here half a year yet you think of yourself as more of a member than me, but take a second to realize there are EB members here that have been around much longer than you.

i do not think i am more of a member than you, it doesnt matter if you have 1 post or 1000 posts, i would still be asking these questions even to a respected member who presented me with the info you have, it doesnt matter how long anyones been around, i am merely trying to sort the fact from the fiction and present my view that i think, and obviously others do, that that result you have is seriously flawed

[ULJarad]

Yea, but you say 'you have to show us more to prove to us at XS,' when by "us" you mean you, me, everyone at XS, and the EB members here at XS, some of which have posted in this thread on both forums.

ok i'll take your point on that that you made an 'asumption' they would perform the same, however this was not made clear in the original reply

I'm not sure what you thought I was saying. Dual-core perform the same as the same speed single-core in single-threaded programs. No calculus required, although you are free to try.

[Jamo]

i mean the majority of XS members contributing on this thread that have their doubts, going on unknown sources and not having any idea of what systems the results in the graph refer to isnt the norm here at XS, thats all

[ULJarad]

Then we can Hanners and his email buddy together. How does that sound?

[Jamo]

ULJarad i have nothing at all against you personally, if i came on a little strong then i appologise all i'm trying to do is get the facts, i am totally against cheats and fakers and XS has had its fair share in the past thats all, all i was trying to question was the validity of the graph without any other info such as the systems used etc...

i dont understand your last reply?

Then we can Hanners and his email buddy together. How does that sound?

[isp]

pics aren't loading for me...

[ULJarad]

ULJarad i have nothing at all against you personally, if i came on a little strong then i appologise all i'm trying to do is get the facts, i am totally against cheats and fakers and XS has had its fair share in the past thats all, all i was trying to question was the validity of the graph without any other info such as the systems used etc...

K, let's move on.

i dont understand your last reply?

Hanners is the one who posted the news on EB.

[Faceless Rebel]

It looks like that graph has been pulled. I guess Hanners also realized that the results were questionable. A P4EE 3.73 should definitely beat a FX-53 in Cinebench.

[ULJarad]

Jamo, would you care to throw the first to throw the first stone.

[cupra]

that is nice, but i think that we need to wait and see more benchmarking programs

[Dumo]

Just dont post other people benches..

[IluvIntel]

That Italian review is questionable for 2 very good reasons:

1. Where are the full system specifications for all the CPU's that were tested?
when I looked into that article, I could not see any descriptions about the details of the competing rigs, all I saw was just a list of cpu's and there supposed results.

2. None of the other CPU's have 2 physical cores, only the AMD dual core did. How can this be a "Fair" test?

Its amazing how people draw conclusions based on insufficient evidence. Very unscientific indeed.

here is the link if you don't want to scroll back again:

http://translate.google.com/translat...language_tools

This just echoes what my teacher from college taught me many years ago about the internet:

"don't believe everything you read on the internet"

[PetNorth]

1. Where are the full system specifications for all the CPU's that were tested?
when I looked into that article, I could not see any descriptions about the details of the competing rigs, all I saw was just a list of cpu's and there supposed results.

They take the rest CPU results from their own previous reviews. Search in "articoli" section (specifically when they review some CPU) and you will find what you ask:

http://www.hwupgrade.it/art_list.php...45f6859f0fc984

2. None of the other CPU's have 2 physical cores, only the AMD dual core did. How can this be a "Fair" test?

Well, dual system Xeon and Dual system Opteron have two CPUs (thats because they are dual systems hehe) ;-) They have a very very very similar perfomance than a dual core equivalent speed has.

[IluvIntel]

They take the rest CPU results from their own previous reviews. Search in "articoli" section (specifically when they review some CPU) and you will find what you ask:

http://www.hwupgrade.it/art_list.php...45f6859f0fc984



Well, dual system Xeon and Dual system Opteron have two CPUs (thats because they are dual systems hehe) ;-) They have a very very very similar perfomance than a dual core equivalent speed has.

I was refering to the Italian test and only to THAT test that was quoted on this thread.

[i found nemo]

edit, no comment

[conrad.maranan]

but wtf is ur problem lay off the crack, i appologize for any offence

This constitutes as flaming in my book. I suggest everyone just tone it down from this point forward. If you would like to go back and forth at each other, feel free to pump your testosterone out via PM.

This stops here and now. Seriously. And no need to comment on this post.

[PetNorth]

I was refering to the Italian test and only to THAT test that was quoted on this thread.

And I'm explaining you from where italian page you are referring takes the rest of table's results of their test.