45nm Phenom Overclocked, Super Pied

[hokiealumnus]

How about everyday tasking which more people are likey to be doing as i dont run any of the apps you just mentioned .

Best I can think of right now to quantify "every day" would be the WinRar benchmark. There are obviously other factors in this bench besides CPU, but it's all I can think of. The C2D system in my sig @ 3.0GHz (haven't run it at 3.1) gets 647KB/s and it takes 2min34sec to process 100MB. The 9500 @ 2.4GHz gets 505KB/s and it takes 3min18sec to process 100MB.

BTW folks, now I'm just answering questions. I feel the need to reiterate I like my AMD rig.

[Oliverda]

Best I can think of right now to quantify "every day" would be the WinRar benchmark. There are obviously other factors in this bench besides CPU, but it's all I can think of. The C2D system in my sig @ 3.0GHz (haven't run it at 3.1) gets 647KB/s and it takes 2min34sec to process 100MB. The 9500 @ 2.4GHz gets 505KB/s and it takes 3min18sec to process 100MB.

Ohhh... I think something is really wrong with your AMD rig.

[blaH]

... The C2D system in my sig @ 3.0GHz (haven't run it at 3.1) gets 647KB/s and it takes 2min34sec to process 100MB. The 9500 @ 2.4GHz gets 505KB/s and it takes 3min18sec to process 100MB....

sounds like single threaded winrar benchmark

[hokiealumnus]

sounds like single threaded winrar benchmark

That explains it! I have an old version of Winrar. Very good observation; I didn't even know they had implemented that. With the OC reduced to 2.4GHz (PWM was getting toasty), it now gets 1655KB/s & processes 100MB in 1min1sec. By comparison, the C2D rig gets 1,253KB/s & processes 100MB in 1min20sec. Thanks for pointing that out! Now to figure out why F@H doesn't crunch better...

OP I must apologize again, this was not meant to turn into a derailment. If you want, feel free to have an admin delete my posts from Winrar on; I won't be offended. While SP might be moot b/c of its single-threadedness (no, that's not a word), I still stand by the F@H issues. Carry on.

[charged3800z24]

That sounds better,... I got 1882kbs @ 2.9ghz 2400mhz NB on the 9850BE

[DPeter]

That explains it! I have an old version of Winrar. Very good observation; I didn't even know they had implemented that. With the OC reduced to 2.4GHz (PWM was getting toasty), it now gets 1655KB/s & processes 100MB in 1min1sec. By comparison, the C2D rig gets 1,253KB/s & processes 100MB in 1min20sec. Thanks for pointing that out! Now to figure out why F@H doesn't crunch better...

OP I must apologize again, this was not meant to turn into a derailment. If you want, feel free to have an admin delete my posts from Winrar on; I won't be offended. While SP might be moot b/c of its single-threadedness (no, that's not a word), I still stand by the F@H issues. Carry on.

Hi, hokiealumnus Well I'm quite bussy with folding and I can tell you that the multi core client for folding, isn't doing much intercore communication.
It's not like the ps3 client that does do a litle bit of work on each spu.
the folding multicoreclient behaves like a client that can work on a grid of computers, so it doens't need the big intercore bandwith (it's not like the intel intercore communication is as slow as ethernet ) That's why folding smp needs the MPI service for multicore! So phenom will only outperform Core 2 if folding would implement somthing like the ps3 core, but that doens't make much sens for a normal x86 cpu.

greetz

[hokiealumnus]

Hi, hokiealumnus Well I'm quite bussy with folding and I can tell you that the multi core client for folding, isn't doing much intercore communication.
It's not like the ps3 client that does do a litle bit of work on each spu.
the folding multicoreclient behaves like a client that can work on a grid of computers, so it doens't need the big intercore bandwith (it's not like the intel intercore communication is as slow as ethernet ) That's why folding smp needs the MPI service for multicore! So phenom will only outperform Core 2 if folding would implement somthing like the ps3 core, but that doens't make much sens for a normal x86 cpu.

greetz

This makes complete sense, thanks for that.

I should point out that the F@H results I was quoting were from Windows XP 32-bit. I have been having issues with Ubuntu (64-bit) and this rig, but when it actually folds right, it gets significantly higher ppd. It's been a while since I tried (trying again and typing from Ubuntu now), but IIRC project 1753 got ~2,200ppd, which beats the C2D by just over 300 on that project. I guess it just needs the right application to take advantage.

I guess the conclusion one can draw from this is that the C2D/C2Q platform isn't necessarily better (when ignoring the overclock potential of course), it's just different. Were more applications tailored specifically to AMD's architecture and not to Intel, we may see the reverse happen and Phenom beat Core2.

So, this has helped me learn some about why my Phenom isn't as bad as I thought. Thanks for everyone's input. I feel slightly better now.

Now, let's all continue to cheer on and support AMD. They'll get over the hill and beat Intel again; they have before. 3.4GHz (even if at insane Vcore for a 45nm chip) is a definite step in the right direction. Go AMD!