3DMark Vantage Loves The Cores: QCs FTW !!

[perkam]

Here it is, courtesy of Freak and PC Games Hardware Germany:



Intel is leading and owning and it looks like the benchmark LOVES the extra L2 as well

Also, Phenom finally gets its much needed push towards competitiveness. The difference between the QX6850 and the Phenom 9x50 at 3 ghz is 900 points, but it dwindles to 122 points when the final score is calculated. Similarly, the difference between the 3Ghz Q9650 and 3Ghz Phenom scores is almost 2700 points, but when the final score is tallied it is translated to a 365 point lead overall.

Although the Phenoms cannot clock over 3.2 and 3.3 even on the best of chips and the Intel Q9xxx series has been known to reach 4Ghz with ease, 3D Mark Vantage, far from being a perfect benchmark, does well to incorporate a core-based CPU performance approach with greater emphasis on GPU power, which gives AMD a smaller gap to overcome relative to previous 3D benchmarks. AMDs tri-core offerings get a much needed boost from the third core leaving behind Intels fast-clocking E8x00 and E7x00 series. Though the performance boost does not represent in-game performance, it does demonstrate an instance where AMDs attempt to undercut Intels new faster 45nm dual core offerings by offering a cheap tri-core to make up for lower clockspeed has been somewhat successful, in this and other multi-threaded benchmarks, which should encourage AMD Phenom users to check it out as well , as I`m sure Intel enthusiasts will be trying to see how they fare in the extreme setting

Perkam

[Mungri]

Yes it is good to see a quad core optimised benchmark at last

Now only if games could start being better optimised for quad cores.

[Swatrecon_]

It is really nice to see a benchmark that finally lets Phenom show what it's made of. I mean, besides the errata, which from what I know of it is unavoidable, it's a really great chip. Intel just released a quad (albeit "fake") long before they did it the right way.

[Sparky]

It is really nice to see a benchmark that finally lets Phenom show what it's made of. I mean, besides the errata, which from what I know of it is unavoidable, it's a really great chip. Intel just released a quad (albeit "fake") long before they did it the right way.

actually the newer B3 revision that are now out in the wild don't have the errata and seem to OC better too

[DoubleZero]

X3 8750 at 3.1ghz, must be the best overclock for a non-BE phenom.

[Drunner611]

How is a 9850 at 3.0ghz getting beat by a 2.5ghz Q9300 showing off Phenom's competitiveness?

Lol, I'll probably get flamed for this, but I'm just pointing out the obvious.

[Epsilon84]

"3DMark Vantage Breathes New Life Into AMD Phenom"

How? I don't think this benchmark shows Phenom in a positive light at all, especially the quads. The fastest Phenom, a 9850BE @ 3GHz is slower than a stock Q9300 @ 2.5GHz. If you count max overclock, its 40% slower than a Q6600 @ 3.8GHz.

Moving on to the X3, at stock they match up well with C2Ds, but at max overclock falls behind slightly. However, considering the small price gap between tris and quads at this point, it doesn't really make much sense to get an X3, especially if you want maximum 3DMark e-peen scores.

[stocius]

"3DMark Vantage Breathes New Life Into AMD Phenom"

How? I don't think this benchmark shows Phenom in a positive light at all, especially the quads. The fastest Phenom, a 9850BE @ 3GHz is slower than a stock Q9300 @ 2.5GHz. If you count max overclock, its 40% slower than a Q6600 @ 3.8GHz.

Moving on to the X3, at stock they match up well with C2Ds, but at max overclock falls behind slightly. However, considering the small price gap between tris and quads at this point, it doesn't really make much sense to get an X3, especially if you want maximum 3DMark e-peen scores.

Exact defintion of 3D Mark (waits for flaming)

[Brian MP5T]

AMD is teh ROFL.

[initialised]

It is really nice to see a benchmark that finally lets Phenom show what it's made of. I mean, besides the errata, which from what I know of it is unavoidable, it's a really great chip. Intel just released a quad (albeit "fake") long before they did it the right way.

I'll bet Phenom would fly if intel made their boards. But, seriously is this test done on Nvidia 780i for Core2 and 780A for Phenom?, otherwise it isn't necesarily comparable.

[initialised]

"3DMark Vantage Breathes New Life Into AMD Phenom"

How? I don't think this benchmark shows Phenom in a positive light at all, especially the quads. The fastest Phenom, a 9850BE @ 3GHz is slower than a stock Q9300 @ 2.5GHz. If you count max overclock, its 40% slower than a Q6600 @ 3.8GHz.

Moving on to the X3, at stock they match up well with C2Ds, but at max overclock falls behind slightly. However, considering the small price gap between tris and quads at this point, it doesn't really make much sense to get an X3, especially if you want maximum 3DMark e-peen scores.

Ecactly, a Pentim 2160 OC'd is better than the lowest Phenom, also worth noting it's higher than a Stock EX6850 lol

[Spawne32]

404 life not found

[eleeter]

I don't know how accurate those results are really, but it's not surprise to me to see Phenom being beaten, again.

I got a tick over 10,000 with my system, but overclocked memory and FSB/HT etc. can have a good effect on the score. Here's a C2Q@ 3.0Ghz, scores 10128.

3DMV doesn't breath new life into Phenom, it is what it is, slower per clock then C2, not horribly slow like many, many Intel pushers constantly like to bring up, but slower none the less.

[Epsilon84]

3DMV doesn't breath new life into Phenom, it is what it is, slower per clock then C2, not horribly slow like many, many Intel pushers constantly like to bring up, but slower none the less.

When compared against Kentsfield, its slightly slower per clock, but against Yorkfield the deficit is quite substantial, around 25%. Does that make it 'horribly slow'? Not in my opinion, but if you ask hardc0re 3DMark benchers they'll probably have a different view. :p

[Spawne32]

is it safe to say that the only thing being breathed in here is carbon monoxide?

[NickS]

All this Phenom hating, lol, but its so true. Last week I was looking @ Tri Core Phenoms as a new CPU. I figured, well hey, $149 and they clock to 3GHz relatively easy. Should be a good CPU! I'm downgrading my rig so I thought well, even if its slower than my Xeon 3060 I'll still have one more core right?

Then I realized the E4500 is $119, and it's faster, and it runs cooler..... then I felt like a complete idiot for thinking Phenom was a good idea.

[shiznit93]

The 3.0ghz phenom get beat by a 2.5ghz castrated Q9300.

This thread is pointless.

[davidletterboyz]

"3DMark Vantage Breathes New Life Into AMD Phenom"

How? I don't think this benchmark shows Phenom in a positive light at all, especially the quads. The fastest Phenom, a 9850BE @ 3GHz is slower than a stock Q9300 @ 2.5GHz. If you count max overclock, its 40% slower than a Q6600 @ 3.8GHz.

Moving on to the X3, at stock they match up well with C2Ds, but at max overclock falls behind slightly. However, considering the small price gap between tris and quads at this point, it doesn't really make much sense to get an X3, especially if you want maximum 3DMark e-peen scores.

Yeah, you are right, some X3's are not that worth. But the lower end's X3 is not bad.
If we compare amd vs intel with respect to the CPU price, I think AMD is doing ok with lower end X3. Take a look at the CPUs, price and vantage score (I got the pricelist from egg ) at stock speed:

X3 8450 $148.00 = 5179
X3 8650 $165.99 = 5623
X3 8750 $195.00 = 5942
X4 9550 $199.99 = 7231

C2D E8200 $184.99 = ~5262 (no score from the chart, scaled from E8500 score)
C2D E8400 $189.99 = ~5934 (scaled form E8500)
C2D E8500 $279.99 = 6251 (expensive due to shortage? )
Q6600 $229 = 8598

As you can see, at stock speed it's not that bad. But Q6600 has the highest vantage score per dollar .

Of course, for us where overclocking is a big concern, Intel has a way bigger advantage.

[OBR]

who needs Phenom with consuption like hell? Look at Q9300 ... for that money best chip ever and consuption like a calculator ...

[villa1n]

to be fair, it scales fairly well, 2.5 ghz to 3.0 .. 20% clock..and score is 16.55%.. not bad disparity.

although doing the calculations for the 9300... it seems a 20% clock increase.. 2.5 to 3... leads to 20.5% performance increase.. lol what kind of curve is this..9300 arch underclocked at 2.5... or non linear scale? or bad maths on my part?

[Tim]

HOW on earth is this putting Phenom in a positive light?

[gallag]

...although at the same time it kills hopes for ATI to come to the top anytime soon

But yea, here it is, courtesy of Freak and PC Games Hardware Germany:



Yep, Phenom finally gets its much needed push towards competitiveness.

Perkam

I don't get it , not saying that phenom is not getting better, In fact I am sure there are benchmarks where it would fair better against Intel than in this test.
what am I missing? because to me this looks like a pretty poor showing for phenom, No?

[ethernal]

As others have pointed out.. how does this breath life into AMD?

Intel's Q9300 - their lowest end quad core at stock outscored AMD's top-end processor that was overclocked to its limit. The Q9300 has a 60 watt lower power consumption than the X4 9850, and that's when the X4 isn't even overclocked.

If anything, this shows the futility of AMD's offerings. At least in most other benchmarks, an X4 9850 @ 3Ghz would beat a Q9300 pretty significantly. This is just embarrassing.

[Shintai]

Looking on Q6600 vs Q9300 and others I think there was some synthetic memory bench there

This bench is another joke like 3Dmark when compared to real life.

[duploxxx]

just look at the results, vantage is very cache friendly....

a phenom +0.1 speed increase provides roughly + 250/280 score depending on x3 or x4
same for the q9300-q9450 comparison + 278 points

but going from 7300-8300 @ same speed you increase more then 600 points
so increasing from q6600-q9300 gives you 0.1 speed advantage + 2x cache increase so that explains the big jump.