Deneb Samples are almost out

[JumpingJack]

I was anyway

Here is the thread
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread....1362408&page=2


I have been warned here too because I criticized the scaling of C2Q. One problem could be that I talk from a programmer perspective. On forums they just see it from applications out there. If you want to scale well on C2Q you need to think about the design before you build it.

....

Now when i7 is out this type of scaling for applications might be much more common. it is much simpler for programmers to do this to gain speed. Rewriting applications is very seldom an option.

I will look through the thread and see if I can provide you some feedback ...

On the scaling question, it is not unfair to criticize the C2Q scaling, relative to a single instance, say, to a complete loading say 4 instances or threads. Everyone is well aware that Kents and Yorks are MCM using the FSB backbone to cohere the two L2 cache pools, this is not optimum granted. And it shows up in the data, in applications where you can observe this. A good example is cinbench, AMD quads routinely get scaling factors of 3.8-3.9 from single to 4 threaded measurements, whereas Intel hovers in the 3.5-3.6 range ... obviously, Intel does not scale up quite as well.

However, it is one thing to say Intel does not scale as well it is quite another to say AMD is better because they scale better. The better scaling afforded to AMD does not overcome the absolute difference, and again the data shows this. So (and this is just an example with numbers, no meaning really) if Intel shows 30% better performance single threaded, it may only show 15% better multithreaded over AMD because they don't scale well, however they are still 15% better overall.

This translates into sever space especially well ... AMD scales even better than Intel there because as you add more sockets AMD's design also adds more aggregate bandwidth, where as Intel's fixed uniform memory architecture increases the demand but the BW stays the same. As a result, AMD competes with Xeon much better than they do in the desktop.

Indeed, one problem is you say it and then justify it via 'programming' or 'look at the source code' ... this is not good reasons nor good basis for supporting your argument. No matter the program or algorithm, nothing changes the inherent empirical observation by simply observing which platform finishes the job quicker.

EDIT: Ok, I see the thread ... you made, more or less, a public accusation about HardOCP that was not flattering. Kyle did not like it at all -- from my perspective, Kyle was right and here is one of your problems -- and I am being constructively critical here, not trying to bash you -- you are obviously a staunch AMD supporter, and you attempt to condense the current state of the competitive environment into fanboys bashing AMD for no apparent reason. When it goes to that level it quickly adds fuel to the fire and the discussions soon denigrate into name calling and personal attacks. You would serve yourself (and AMD for that matter) much better if you argue with the data/facts and not against it by assuming every site is pro-Intel because of some nefarious conspiracy. For example, it is show throughout the reviews most anywhere that Intel C2Qs are out performing AMD clock for clock and clock higher... true, performance sells, but this does not mean AMD does not make a good product. AMD markets their current line as good processors with good value (i.e. price), and this is true... there are good arguments for procuring and using AMD processors, Phenom is a darn good processor... it really depends on the needs, wants, and other stuff... having the fastest is not always the best.

Jack