then its still point less to guess the graph, if the used CF did they use a P45 or a X48?Originally Posted by Macadamia
then its still point less to guess the graph, if the used CF did they use a P45 or a X48?
Copy and paste from the comments...
just look at the LP and UT3 graphs. The Intel systems hit a GPU wall there. If it were a powerful like graphics HD4870, how could the GPU limit happen?
Where I state that? You like to interpret things a lot...So if someone dont reply that automatically mean his arguments is invalide?
In your post relative to proven fact you quoted Saaya's words coz u like them but you ignored Tony's words coz...
It's your translation of the situation and and your again turn it in Intel favor...Btw. that statement of saaya is also wrong, we see higher clocks on retail parts of Ci7 then intel showed us. So if they where handpicked, intel made sure they only picked "avarage ones".
AMD Phenom II X2 550@Phenom II X4 B50
MSI 890GXM-G65
Corsair CMX4GX3M2A1600C9 2x2GB
Sapphire HD 6950 2GB
How would you even reach that conclusion without any FPS data?
Seems we made our greatest error when we named it at the start
for though we called it "Human Nature" - it was cancer of the heart
CPU: AMD X3 720BE@ 3,4Ghz
Cooler: Xigmatek S1283(Terrible mounting system for AM2/3)
Motherboard: Gigabyte 790FXT-UD5P(F4) RAM: 2x 2GB OCZ DDR3 1600Mhz Gold 8-8-8-24
GPU:HD5850 1GB
PSU: Seasonic M12D 750W Case: Coolermaster HAF932(aka Dusty)
If the 4870 became GPU limited then wouldn't that happened to the Phenom graphs as well? We all know how GPU limited graphs look like.
Obviously there are two different GPUs compared here.
For me that clearly sound your implying that saaya was wrong. Since saaya didn't replyed to tonys post you implyed his where worng and tonys where right...
Im not spinning anything there, just a straight ansewer to your reply....
From the other thread:
In best case scenario for intel IGP,it would be ~3x slower than 4850/4870,not 20-50% slower like the graphs show.3dmark06 CPU tests runs the same regardless of GPU that is used...So you can rule of that one as GPU dependent.Lost Planet could mean GPU or CPU test.The last 2 are mainly GPU related and those two can be marked as bs.But still,what GPU intel has that is only 20% slower than HD 4850/70 AMD uses in Dragon platform?Is that some kind of phantom GPU no one knows about?
Dragon is about Phenom II + 790FX/GX+ HD4850/70,not about integr. graphics ...
All in all,this is marketing slide and tells us noting we haven't known for a while(apart from a CPU score for a940 which we get by 1.1xCPUscore(Q9400)).
And i repeat,Dragon is about PhenomII+790FX+HD4850/70, NOT about IGP.
So what intel GPU was used in intel systems that can pull those kind of numbers?
Last edited by informal; 11-26-2008 at 07:41 AM.
If the 4870 became GPU limited then wouldn't that happened to the Phenom graphs as well? We all know how GPU limited graphs look like.
Obviously there are two different GPUs compared here.
Seems we made our greatest error when we named it at the start
for though we called it "Human Nature" - it was cancer of the heart
CPU: AMD X3 720BE@ 3,4Ghz
Cooler: Xigmatek S1283(Terrible mounting system for AM2/3)
Motherboard: Gigabyte 790FXT-UD5P(F4) RAM: 2x 2GB OCZ DDR3 1600Mhz Gold 8-8-8-24
GPU:HD5850 1GB
PSU: Seasonic M12D 750W Case: Coolermaster HAF932(aka Dusty
That's right, but the graphs doesn't show that. So its not IGP versus 48xx GPU.
Let me correct that for you...
Dragon = Phenom II + AMD 790GX based motherboards + HD4800 series graphics card.
Of course not...
But look at Unreal Tournament 3 and Lost Planet. Obviously the Intel machines compared definitely hit the GPU limit there. If the same GPU was used, wouldn't the Phenom system became limited as well?
Like I said before, two different GPUs are compared here.
Nobody denies this. It's not IGP, but 2 different GPUs are used. Might be SLI/CF/Whateva, but there's a noticable difference, Lost Planet was the indicator.Like I said before, two different GPUs are compared here.
Dead end for this maybe u can respond to this?
In your post relative to proven fact you quoted Saaya's words coz u like them but you ignored Tony's words coz...http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...m,2057-25.htmlIf the 4870 became GPU limited then wouldn't that happened to the Phenom graphs as well? We all know how GPU limited graphs look like.
Obviously there are two different GPUs compared here.
Estimation Q9400 3 fps less Q9450 and again 3 less for Q9300.
138fps vs 135fps on the chart = not much difference.
280GTX for all benchmark.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_i7_nehalem_performance_preview/page11.asp
C2Q 3GHz 100 - C2Q 3.2GHz 105
Zoom AMD slide and you will see that for Lost Planet and UT3 Q9400 bars are slighly bigger than Q9300 bars.
AMD Phenom II X2 550@Phenom II X4 B50
MSI 890GXM-G65
Corsair CMX4GX3M2A1600C9 2x2GB
Sapphire HD 6950 2GB
i already adressed this here in the thread,
since tony didn't said anything nore then amd-pr already did i don't need to mention tony.
If you read tonys posts cearfull, you see the he read/was told by amd reps that they cpus whern't handpicked.
Is it the truth, i dont know -> see
That does not explain how those magical performance boost comes from...
Taking Intel numbers as 100%....
Especially for Lost Planet & Quake 4 = (100% - 60%) / 60% = 66%
Unreal Tournament 2 = (100% - 80%) / 80% = 25%
Those are not small numbers, unless you are comparing a single GPU versus dual GPU, as in single versus CrossfireX/SLI.
The most probable explanation would be comparing AMD's HD3300 IGP against a poor Intel's GMA X4500 IGP.
All would make sense if that was AMD dragon platform,which it ain't!
The most probable explanation would be comparing AMD's HD3300 IGP against a poor Intel's GMA X4500 IGP.
Proof:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/cont...11-13-2008.pdf
As you can clearly see from above,Dragon's key feature IS HD4800 graphics(aprt from a new CPU),NOT HD3300 or any IGP part whatsoever.
More from here:
Upcoming 45nm Desktop Processors AMD also plans to bring this higher-performance and more energy efficient 45nm processor technology to the desktop PC market in Q1 2009 with the AMD platform codenamed “Dragon.” This platform will be the second generation AMD performance desktop platform, featuring all next-generation components in comparison to the first generation AMD “Spider” platform released in 2008. The AMD “Dragon” platform is designed to harness the power of fusion by optimizing the performance of new 45nm AMD Phenom™ II X4 quad-core processors with award-winning AMD 700 Series chipsets and award-winning ATI Radeon™ HD 4000 series graphics.
Last edited by informal; 11-26-2008 at 09:50 AM.
The numbers just doesnt add up with the HD4800 series in any possible way. Unless they outright cheated. However the IGP numbers are in fact very there where they should be.
Plus its not the first time we seen a slide like this. It was the exact same the last time...even tho a discrete GPU was also part of the platform. it was still an IGP shootout.
Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.
The slide is named AMD's Dragon platform performance.I supplied the press quote which clearly says what Dragon is.It clearly is NOT IGP based system.
You can speculate all you want,but that is a fact.It's HD4800 series card inside Dragon system.And i doubt AMD would pair intel systems with IGPs while everyone knows intel systems well support PCIe ,SLI and CF on them. ALso the numbers don't fit even if it supposedly was HD4870 vs intel IGP since the difference woul be like 500 or 700% ,NOT 20% and 40-50%. Makes no sense.
It's not like intel systems can't run PCIe cards inside of them...
Yeah,you can think they "outright cheated".We don't know what drivers they used,what boards they used for Yorkfileds,but you can logically dismiss "IGP hypothesis" since it doesn't fit in the very essence of next generation desktop platform. NExt gen desktop platform and IGP is no go.And that's what Dragon is,a successor to Spider(which surprise surprise is Phenom+790FX+HD3800 ,NOT +IGP)
So Phenom 2 that aint much faster in 3Dmark06 is funny enough 66% faster than a Q9400 in Quake 4 and Lost Planet? On a platform the Phenom uses aswell and didnt show such numbers?The slide is named AMD's Dragon platform performance.I supplied the press quote which clearly says what Dragon is.It clearly is NOT IGP based system.
You can speculate all you want,but that is a fact.It's HD4800 series card inside Dragon system.And i doubt AMD would pair intel systems with IGPs while everyone knows intel systems well support PCIe ,SLI and CF on them
It's not like intel systems can't run PCIe cards inside of them...
Yeah,you can think they "outright cheated".We don't know what drivers they used,what boards they used for Yorkfileds,but you can logically dismiss "IGP hypothesis" since it doesn't fit in the very essence of next generation desktop platform. NExt gen desktop platform and IGP is no go.And that's what Dragon is,a successor to Spider(which surprise surprise is Phenom+790FX+HD3800 ,NOT +IGP)
Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.
Lets try 9950 vs i7 920 with the numbers AbelJemka posted.That does not explain how those magical performance boost comes from...
Taking Intel numbers as 100%....
Especially for Lost Planet & Quake 4 = (100% - 60%) / 60% = 66%
Unreal Tournament 2 = (100% - 80%) / 80% = 25%
Those are not small numbers, unless you are comparing a single GPU versus dual GPU, as in single versus CrossfireX/SLI.
The most probable explanation would be comparing AMD's HD3300 IGP against a poor Intel's GMA X4500 IGP.
Lost Planet:
i7 920: ~128fps
9950: ~71fps
=> (128 - 71) / 71 = 81%
Unreal Tournament 2:
i7 920: ~137fps
9950: ~106
=> (137 - 106) / 106 = 29%
How do you explain this with the same graphic card used for both processors?
Last edited by Eson; 11-26-2008 at 10:12 AM.
informal, believe what you want..... But those numbers are telling me that this is not exactly an apples to apples comparison when it comes to the GPU part.
Sometimes i think you're just pretending to be stupid ,sometimes i don't know what to think.
Can you read the slide or not,seriously? The slide says 3DMark06 (CPU),and guess what it means?It is not the composite score,it's just the CPU score. CPU scores are just a factor in the final score of that benchmark,and they doesn't represent the final score(ie. final score doesn't come clsoe to the CPU score in any way).I thought you should know this by now,i guess i was wrong.Oh well ,it's not the first time i guess.
I'm basing my posts on facts and figures we already know publicly,not on speculation like you do.Please show what was not logical in the two quotes provided,or you want to argue with AMD what the Dragon platform is all about?informal, believe what you want..... But those numbers are telling me that this is not exactly an apples to apples comparison when it comes to the GPU part.
Also note i didn't say what i think they used on intel system as a GPU part,only that i think it was not IGP as the difference is way to small when compared to HD4800(should be a LOT bigger than puny 20-60%,a radeon 3650 could be that much faster than intel IGP)
Last edited by informal; 11-26-2008 at 10:14 AM.
What the heck...
All you guys are doing is speculating over some numbers and what hardware they used. Since we don't really know, why don't we just shove them aside and disregard them at this point. When the hardware comes out, or we see some numbers where the hardware used is stated, then we can draw some more conclusions. But right now you guys arguing back and forth about this rather nebulous stuff is almost funny and totally pointless
The Cardboard Master Crunch with us, the XS WCG team
Intel Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz, 16GB DDR3-1600, Radeon 7950 @ 1000/1250, Win 10 Pro x64
Those are using low settings to bring out the proceesor performance. When settings are very high, you will see GPU limited situation which is shown in two of those graphs (Lost Planet and Unreal Tournament 3).
GPU limited situation...
An IGP will get GPU limited even more quickly.
The 3DMark06 CPU score tells us that the Phenom II aint 66% faster for sure. So tell me...what makes the Phenom II system 66% faster? Its funny enough what to expect from IGP vs IGP...Sometimes i think you're just pretending to be stupid ,sometimes i don't know what to think.
Can you read the slide or not,seriously? The slide says 3DMark06 (CPU),and guess what it means?It is not the composite score,it's just the CPU score. CPU scores are just a factor in the final score of that benchmark,and they doesn't represent the final score(ie. final score doesn't come clsoe to the CPU score in any way).I thought you should know this by now,i guess i was wrong.Oh well ,it's not the first time i guess.
Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.
This:Those are using low settings to bring out the proceesor performance. When settings are very high, you will see GPU limited situation which is shown in two of those graphs (Lost Planet and Unreal Tournament 3).
GPU limited situation...
An IGP will get GPU limited even more quickly.
Neither of us are wrong until we know setups.What the heck...
All you guys are doing is speculating over some numbers and what hardware they used. Since we don't really know, why don't we just shove them aside and disregard them at this point. When the hardware comes out, or we see some numbers where the hardware used is stated, then we can draw some more conclusions. But right now you guys arguing back and forth about this rather nebulous stuff is almost funny and totally pointless
Of course it ain't 66% faster since CPU score tests CPU.. Doh. Is this so hard to understand??Other tests are actual game tests,but we don't know the settings/res used.As i said i don't know what GPU(s) they used on intel system,maybe it was a specific game setting in which the intel system falls short(look the graphs Eson provided in which Core i7 shows similar numbers).
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks