Intel Q9450 vs Phenom 9850 - ATI HD3870 X2

[JumpingJack]

very interesting to see



is this done with phenom (or is it fake maybe)?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=197648

If you read through the forums, the link that generated this data came from chiphell...

This is the CPU that generated it:
http://www.chiphell.com/?action-view...mid-211-page-3

Q6600, not Phenom.

EDIT: Oooops, then I read lower in the thread and this is not the link. Hold on let me search some more.

EDIT2: What CPU, I see no mention of phenom in there. And I don't know if it is fake because Chiphell does not have a 4870X2 review posted.


Jack

[RunawayPrisoner]

The CPU that did that was a QX9650 at 4GHz.

Why? Cuz...

http://bbs.chiphell.com/viewthread.p...extra=page%3D1

And cuz...

http://bbs.chiphell.com/viewthread.p...extra=page%3D1

Well... cuz the data matches, more or less.

[Loser777]

Fair enough, I should have been a bit less commanding and left room in the wording... my bad. ... there are situations where the architecture does shine ... h264 encoding is a great example.

I seem to recall the P4's shine in Video Encoding when A64 was kicking Prescott's butt.

[JumpingJack]

I seem to recall the P4's shine in Video Encoding when A64 was kicking Prescott's butt.

The one thing they could do well (aside from heating a small room) ... that is because video encoding is not very 'branchy'.

jack

[JumpingJack]

3DMark06

Phenom@2.5 Ghz 4870X2 1680x1050 2xA 16xAF


Phenom@2.5 Ghz 4870X2 Default Settings


QX9650@2.5 Ghz 4870X2 1680x1050 2xA 16xAF


QX9650@2.5 Ghz 4870X2 default




Scores are low partly due to clock speed, partly due to me not optimizing. Catalyst is set to default as installed.

[adamsleath]

".. an ounce of honest data is worth a pound of marketing hype."

...

[Loser777]

Comon, gosh is just gonna argue that the Phenom lost because the 3dmark SM2 and SM3 tests are mostly singlethreaded and that the CPU test is unfair.

".. an ounce of honest data is worth a pound of marketing hype."

I remember when I bought into the whole Phenom is 40% faster than C2Q...

[adamsleath]

mostly single threaded, yes indeed.
phenom could be much more compelling in a multi-threaded universe.
anyway; it seems close anyway, based on the limited info i have read
it is single threaded apps (and software generally) that are limiting uptake of quad core cpu's in my opinion.

[JumpingJack]

So yesterday, I produced World in Conflict bench runs, trying to match at least the game settings. This is what I had from yesterday, just copied over from the the other page:

QX9650 @ 2.67 GHz (333x8) DDR2-1067 8800 GTX in order of resolution



Phenom 9850 @ 2.5 GHz (200x7.5) DDR2-800 8800 GTX



Phenom 9850 @ 2.5 Ghz (200x7.5) DDR2-1067 8800 GTX



QX9650 @ 2.67 GHz
1024x768. Max = 123 Ave = 50 Min = 21
1280x1024 Max = 104 Ave = 47 Min = 22
1650x1080 Max = 95 Ave = 46 Min = 21

Phenom @ 2.5 Ghz DDR2-800
1024x768. Max = 69 Ave = 27 Min = 10
1280x1024 Max = 69 Ave = 27 Min = 10 (this is odd, exactly the same)
1650x1080 Max =70 Ave = 28 Min = 10

Phenom @ 2.5 GHz DDR-1067
1024x768. Max = 67 Ave = 28 Min = 11
1280x1024 Max = 68 Ave = 27 Min = 9
1650x1080 Max =72 Ave = 29 Min = 9

Here is 1024x768 run on QX9650 @ 2.67 G 4870 X2


Here are the same runs on the 4870 X2


Phenom 9850@2.5G DDR2-800 4870X2 1024x768 0xAA 16xAF


QX9650@2.67G OCC Settings Max = 106 Ave = 49 min = 17
Phenom@2.5G OCC Settings Max = 78 Ave = 33 min = 11

Hardly did anything at all going to a new card -- hmmmmmm weird.

[JumpingJack]

Ok, next the fun one....

Here is my settings, meant to stress the CPU and take the GPU out of the equation.... with a 8800 GTX I got these results:

QX9650 @ 2.5 GHz, DDR2-800 (in this case, all my baseline data is there)



Phenom 9850 @ 2.5 GHz, DDR2-800

Here is today's new 4870 results (mind you, in this experiment I match the clock speeds of the processors).

Phenom@2.5 1280x1024


QX9650 2.5G 1280x1024


To summarize

Phenom 9850 @ 2.5G 1280x1024
...8800 GTX...max =148 ave =61 min =28
...4870 X2.....max =154 ave =68 min = 32

QX9650 @ 2.5G 1280x1024
...8800 GTX...max =302 ave =121 min =53
...4870 X2.....max =234 ave =101 min = 48


The phenom gained about 10% on avereage, but the X2 lost. I will need to check if there is something wrong. But my suspicion is that there is some more work for the ATI programmers in order to get this better on WIC.

[BenchZowner]

For a more real test Jack, could you test WiC @ 1680x1050 4xAA 8xAF and all the game settings @ Full ? ( except DX10 if you're running XP )

[Hornet331]

For a more real test Jack, could you test WiC @ 1680x1050 4xAA 8xAF and all the game settings @ Full ? ( except DX10 if you're running XP )

then your testing the 4870x2, not the cpu.

[gosh]

Comon, gosh is just gonna argue that the Phenom lost because the 3dmark SM2 and SM3 tests are mostly singlethreaded and that the CPU test is unfair.

No I don't!
I have tried to explain in this thread.

Here is some of AMD strong points (what I think) in gaming and why those will show on more complex games. I am NOT a game programmer (that type of programming is very boring) but have some knowledge about DirectX (very little so I might be wrong here).

If a game has live graphics (faces that can show feelings, wind that can move trees etc) then processor need to calculate the picture. This will of course increase the burden for the processor but the cache used for that type of calculation is probably similar in AMD and Intel. They calculate points in a 3d space and pack them in memory blocks. When the points for one block has been calculated it s transferred to the video card. This is done by allocating video memory (I think that memory on the video card is some how mapped to one address space for the computer memory area). There are special commands for this. When the block has been allocated the calculated points are copied to the video card, maybe they use memcpy in C++ for this. When the points has been copied some sort of command is used that can work on those points. Video card communication has high latency so there can’t be too much requests between the video card and the processor, the bandwidth is high so if you can pack more data in blocks you will gain speed.

AMD is using hypertransport for GPU data. If this copying of memory travels using hypertransport these blocks will not hold back any memory transfers because memory transfers are done using the IMC. On Intel all these copying of points to the GPU needs to go through the FSB and that can sometimes block memory transfers and the latency will go up. If one thread needs that it will be slower and if another thread is waiting for that thread then it will also be slower. It’s like a chain reaction in worst case scenario.

In single threaded applications all operations are done in sequence. And there are no conflicts. Advantages using a different passage for one type of traffic don’t exist there. In multithreaded applications one thread could be used for sending data, other threads prepare buffers for the sender thread in order to do work in parallel. If they are using memory and the sender thread is sending data then there is one conflict on Intel and that will delay operations.
I think that live graphics need to send much more data to the video card because the picture needs to be calculated. In race driver grid for example, if there is a crash and smoke then you can se that the processor works harder and is probably more data that is sent between the video card and processor. If the game has parts in the picture that isn’t changed then it probably isn’t that much data that is transferred.

In complex games (live graphics) and the resolution goes up then the game probably is going to use more memory (more data needs to be calculated). That will make the processor use more data from memory instead of finding it in the cache (the cache on Intel is HUGE so it might need some very high and complex picture for this). If threads need to communicate more, smaller threads then this traffic will also increase the burden on the FSB for C2Q. If memory transfers to the video card are running, synchronization will have higher latency. On AMD threads talks to each other using the L3 cache.

When and how different system designs will be better depends on the game of course. But complex games that are calculating much of the picture, is using more than one thread to do this will make the AMD system design to show some of its advantages. Increasing thread count and system design will will shift more to favour AMD.

If you compare only processor speed than Intel is faster because of the cache. If AMD and Intel have the SAME FPS then it is something OTHER than the processor that makes the FPS equal and the answer to that can’t be more than what differs from AMD and Intel.

If you compare these designs you will also be able to se that there exist more bottlenecks on Intel. Raw processor power than Intel wins, but if the game does something special or there are big changes and much data needs to be processed or recalculated then this will need more time on Intel.


EDIT: About mapped memory and hypertransport

http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/cont...docs/40546.pdf
Appendix B
AMD Family 10h processors support four write-combining buffers. Although the number of buffers available for write combining depends on the specific CPU revision, current designs provide as many as four write buffers for WC memory mapped I/O address spaces. These same buffers are used for streaming store instructions. The number of write-buffers determines how many independent linear 64-byte streams of WC data the CPU can simultaneously buffer.
Having multiple write-combining buffers that can combine independent WC streams has implications on data throughput rates (bandwidth), especially when data is written by the CPU to WC memory mapped I/O devices, residing on the AGP, PCI, PCI-X® and PCI Express® buses including:
•Memory Mapped I/O registers—command FIFO, etc.
•Memory Mapped I/O apertures—windows to which the CPU use programmed I/O to send data to a hardware device
•Sequential block of 2D/3D graphic engine registers written using programmed I/O
•Video memory residing on the graphics accelerator—frame buffer, render buffers, textures, etc.

HyperTransport™ Tunnels and Write Chaining
HyperTransport™ tunnels are HyperTransport-to-bus bridges. Many HyperTransport tunnels use a hardware optimization feature called write-chaining. In write-chaining, the tunnel device buffers and combines separate HyperTransport packets of data sent by the CPU, creating one large burst on the underlying bus when the data is received by the tunnel in sequential address order. Using larger bursts results in better throughput since bus efficiency is increased.
[...]

[BenchZowner]

then your testing the 4870x2, not the cpu.

Point is...
We already have several tests in CPU Limited scenarios ( relatively low resolutions and noAA noAF, and medium to high details )... and we all know already and it has been proven a million times that the Core 2 processors are faster ( clearly ) than the Phenoms here.

In real-life scenarios ( medium to full details depending on the game and your VGA and monitor, usually combined with some AA & AF ) once again we've seen some tests, but some people are still skeptic.
So... if you're about to gain anything with a Phenom ( assuming that it's faster in high resolutions as gosh insists ) making it a worth buying CPU ( for a gamer ) would be some FPS in real-life scenarios ( Crysis @ High @ 1680x1050 2xAA 8xAF, Call Of Duty 4:M.W. @ Full Details @ 1920x1200 4xAA 16xAF, etc ).

In this case my bet goes to "equality".
I believe that both platforms will be "scoring" nearly the same, or within the normal run to run variation margin.
Maybe 1 to 3 exceptions will be some games that are very CPU limited even at those settings ( x3: The Threat, Supreme Commander, come to my mind atm ), maybe not...

[RunawayPrisoner]

Here is some of AMD strong points (what I think) in gaming and why those will show on more complex games. I am NOT a game programmer (that type of programming is very boring) but have some knowledge about DirectX (very little so I might be wrong here).

If a game has live graphics (faces that can show feelings, wind that can move trees etc) then processor need to calculate the picture. This will of course increase the burden for the processor but the cache used for that type of calculation is probably similar in AMD and Intel. They calculate points in a 3d space and pack them in memory blocks. When the points for one block has been calculated it s transferred to the video card. This is done by allocating video memory (I think that memory on the video card is some how mapped to one address space for the computer memory area). There are special commands for this. When the block has been allocated the calculated points are copied to the video card, maybe they use memcpy in C++ for this. When the points has been copied some sort of command is used that can work on those points. Video card communication has high latency so there can’t be too much requests between the video card and the processor, the bandwidth is high so if you can pack more data in blocks you will gain speed.

Whaa...? If someone can at least explain to me what you are trying to say... "Maybe they use memcpy in C++" for this...? I am starting to question your programming knowledge, sir. Seriously. (But I don't want to jump to conclusions, as I have noticed that English is not your first language. Either way, I think I'll need to lay off this until someone properly explains exactly what you are trying to say)

[JumpingJack]

Whaa...? If someone can at least explain to me what you are trying to say... "Maybe they use memcpy in C++" for this...? I am starting to question your programming knowledge, sir. Seriously. (But I don't want to jump to conclusions, as I have noticed that English is not your first language. Either way, I think I'll need to lay off this until someone properly explains exactly what you are trying to say)

Ok, I think finally with this post everyone can see where the confusion lies. Let's not gang up on this but try to explain where the problems are.

@ Gosh

In a nutshell -- the CPU is not responsible for creating the actual image the generates a frame to be displayed. This is what the GPU is for, and the reason it is called a Graphics Processing Unit. Increasing resolution affects the computational load that the GPU must endure, not the CPU.

I will go through this point by point later.... busy at the moment. I will do it in several posts, and it may take a few days so please be patient, keep an open mind, and read carefully what I write and the references that I link.

Jack

[JumpingJack]

For a more real test Jack, could you test WiC @ 1680x1050 4xAA 8xAF and all the game settings @ Full ? ( except DX10 if you're running XP )

Yeah... will do.

[gosh]

Whaa...? If someone can at least explain to me what you are trying to say... "Maybe they use memcpy in C++" for this...?

It’s a very common function used in C++ for moving memory. In assembler there are all these mov (wich is used in memcpy also, one processor don't know that many different commands) and variants of that command. What you do is moving memory from one location to another. Game applications are very much about moving memory. Why I wrote that function was because the Intel compiler deoptimized it for non intel processors.

I hope someone else can explain in better english what I wrote

[JumpingJack]

To those following this thread and interested in an X2 update. My general comment. It is clear that the drivers are still beta like, some games are just blazing fast. Other games it is benching in slower than my old 8800 GTX -- examples.

Lost Planet Snow is slower than on an 8800 GTX.
Company of Hero's is much faster (much much faster)

But it appears, from the TechPowerUp data that it is running 1 GPu only, and no x-fire option in CCC ... so I am working on figuring it out. Good news is that I am reproducing the TechPowerUp single GPU numbers within a few FPS.

I am anxious for a driver refresh, hopefully they will be able to update the x-fire profile for all the games to harness the true potential of these cards.

jack

[jspace]

OK, I didn't really read this entire thread but, from what I gather, AMD has a faster GPU solution than Intel? Funny, I didn't know Intel released Larrabee or any other discrete GPU.

@gosh

Game: STALKER
Settings: 1920x1200, 16xAF everything MAX
Q9450 = 83
Phenom 9850 = 84

Game: TDU
Settings: 1920x1200, 4xAA/16xAF, everything HIGH
Q9450 = 45
Phenom 9850 = 47

Game: Half Life 2
Settings: 1920x1200, 4xAA/16xAF, MAX everything.
Q9450 = 295
Phenom 9850 = 300

These are within a generally accepted margin of error. There could easily be a larger separation even on the same platform. If the tests were done correctly, there would be multiple runs, averages, and charts for good measure. Because charts make everything seem more official. This would help eliminate that margin of error that ONE SCREEN SHOT has.

You do realize that a good dual core (read: E8500) will beat both of those right?

Of course, you have been told this, or similar, many times. IMO, this thread should be closed.

@JJ
Awaiting your results

[JumpingJack]

Well, gotta figure out why it is not x-firing the two CPUs on the card. All my scores align with a single GPU, not the dual GPU. Frustrating

[RunawayPrisoner]

Just out of curiosity, what is your score in Lost Planet Snow? (At the moment)

[JumpingJack]

Just out of curiosity, what is your score in Lost Planet Snow? (At the moment)

I haven't played too much .... I wanted to see low res first...

8800 GTX 640x480 is 185 FPS
4870 X2 640x480 is ~140 FPS

At higher res (1280x1024)
8800 GRX is 101ish
4870 X2 is 84 ish

I have a new PCI device that HW wizard cannot find drivers for... but i think it is due to the HDMI drivers for the card, not anything to do with the actual issue I am seeing here. All i can say is thank god for Wizzard and TechPowerUp... without their data I would have not understood as clearly what was going on.

EDIT: well, resolved the unknown PCI device issue. There is a microsoft UAA bridge driver that was not allowing the identification of the HDMI capability on the 4870 X2. I have been running XP SP2 for the longest time on this build (for consistency), on these two builds I have 4 partitions on the system drive, first partition is for the 'identical builds' of the two rigs, 2nd partition is for 'scratch' work, i.e. testing, checking out new drivers, etc before I disturb the primary build.

XP is great, I really appreciate the fact MS lets you activate XP as many times as you want on the same HW... i could install 20 copies of XPS on the same computer if I wanted. They hosed us with Vista.

[RunawayPrisoner]

Mmm... couldn't find 1280 x 1024, so I stuck with 1280 x 960 instead. Settings at default, with Texture Filtering set to "Trilinear"

Q9450 @ 2.66GHz w/ 2GB DDR2 667MHz and HD4870 at 780/1000 (default, my card is a MSI pre-overclocked card)

Snow: 92
Cave: 84

GPU downclocked to 750/900 (default of reference HD4870):

Snow: 87
Cave: 82

CPU overclocked to 3.6GHz and GPU at default 780/1000:

Snow: 93
Cave: 112

Hope that helps... somehow.

Edit: Gameplay data through snow (first mission) at 3.6GHz, 900MHz RAM, 780/1000. All settings at High. 8x AA, 16x AF, retail version, unpatched:

Min: 32fps
Avg: 41fps
Max: 78fps

[JumpingJack]

It does help! I am thinking there will be major improvements in this game after a few revisions of Catalysts.