PCPER.com: 5 GHZ+ Phenom II Overclock on Dry Ice, 6Ghz on LN2

[Jazzman]

.....Lastly, it's important to mention that in the Core i7 965 system vs Phenom II 940 BE Crysis comparison, I was able to verify that both systems were running the exact same graphical settings, with the same cards. Phenom II had 4GB of ram, dual channel while the Core i7 had 3GB in triple channel on an X58 Intel reference board. The Phenom II had higher frame rates throughout the majority of the gameplay.

This was posted in the AMD section but I thought it was important enough to note here. Because it is NEWS!

I posted the following on the AMD thread:

I believe the above comparison was run at a resolution of 1900x1080. What I can't understand is how the Phenom II runing a dual channel system could possibly beat the i7. gosh has argued that AMD in general has a leg in bandwidth but his comments caused a thread to be locked down. I don't know what to think ... If the comparison result is true what could possibly account for this?

I hope this is true because it is the main reason I chose AMD over Intel. I have been drawn to the AMD integration of CPU, Memory, GPU, and Chipset. If the Bios and GPU drivers are optimized and the CPU + GPU + Memory + Chipset are optimized then you have a compeling answer to the technical superiority of any "one" element in an Intel/nVidia computing solution. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts so to speak.

[Donnie27]

Not like Windows 95/98 were that solid and stable anyway

Sure they were, it mostly depended on the user and hardware LOL!

[accord99]

This was posted in the AMD section but I thought it was important enough to note here. Because it is NEWS!

I posted the following on the AMD thread:

I believe the above comparison was run at a resolution of 1900x1080. What I can't understand is how the Phenom II runing a dual channel system could possibly beat the i7. gosh has argued that AMD in general has a leg in bandwidth but his comments caused a thread to be locked down. I don't know what to think ... If the comparison result is true what could possibly account for this?

It seems obvious to me, 1920x1080 and 8X AA with Crysis is the very definition of GPU limited. Combined with only 3GB of memory for the i7, which could potentially lead to memory swapping and you have a comparison that doesn't provide any meaningful information.

[Macadamia]

It seems obvious to me, 1920x1080 and 8X AA with Crysis is the very definition of GPU limited. Combined with only 3GB of memory for the i7, which could potentially lead to memory swapping and you have a comparison that doesn't provide any meaningful information.

I didn't see you protesting when they compared 3GB i7 systems vs 2GB C2D/Q systems on SLi. So if i7 brings extra performance WRT C2 due to the RAM, so can Ph-II.


Plus, you can get 8GB DDR2 RAM for the price of a paired 3GB DDR3. Salt on wounds.

[accord99]

I didn't see you protesting when they compared 3GB i7 systems vs 2GB C2D/Q systems on SLi. So if i7 brings extra performance WRT C2 due to the RAM, so can Ph-II.

Of course, I've never used any such example as something meaningful.

Plus, you can get 8GB DDR2 RAM for the price of a paired 3GB DDR3. Salt on wounds.

So what? The price of memory has nothing to do with a misleading comparison using extremely GPU limited settings to somehow prove the performance of a CPU.

[Charles Wirth]

Discussion is fine, its ok if someone questions a demo for its reasoning.

[roofsniper]

yea i don't think an extra GB of ram would make that huge of a difference.

[Donnie27]

What kinda argument is that? I thought we were talking about hardware? Did it dawn on you Intel based chipset boards and cpus had to run that OS too?

Win98 SE was awesome.

Yes Win98SE was sweet and still had to be installed about every 30 to 45 days on a bunch of K6-x due to VIA chipset problems. A friend at Dell once said, "what good is a speedy processor if the platform sucks. E.R. was nice by saying the platform was Weak.

I hope this is true because it is the main reason I chose AMD over Intel. I have been drawn to the AMD integration of CPU, Memory, GPU, and Chipset. If the Bios and GPU drivers are optimized and the CPU + GPU + Memory + Chipset are optimized then you have a compeling answer to the technical superiority of any "one" element in an Intel/nVidia computing solution. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts so to speak.

Yet, Intel played with Buffers to out gun it Yes, the whole system is slower so that CPU + GPU + Memory + Chipset becomes almost moot. Now, where it does stand out is Platform Stability that had held AMD back for many years.

Superiority? Unfortunately AMD has to do better than "one". For OUR segment of the market (desktop), IMC is more of a Gimmick than a Necessity (that's meant for Intel and AMD). Intel has been building Chipsets a lot longer.

The over clock on Dry ICE is cool, no pun intended.

[Shintai]

yea i don't think an extra GB of ram would make that huge of a difference.

1GB alone would goto textures. Another 500-1000MB on OS.

3GB really aint much today.

[Rammsteiner]

What kinda argument is that? I thought we were talking about hardware? Did it dawn on you Intel based chipset boards and cpus had to run that OS too?

Win98 SE was awesome.

Sure they were, it mostly depended on the user and hardware LOL!

What makes you think this was only on an AMD system

We had W95/98 on Pentium I 75, Pentium I 166, Pentium 2 400 and Athlon 1400 Thunderbird. You can tell me whatever you want, but if it fails at 4 systems to run normally, also my friends had issues with said OS, then it definately doesnt depend on hardware or user.

98SE was indeed better. Then again 98 ain't 98SE, is it?

Also, stop the trolling, especially since it fails

[Calmatory]

1GB alone would goto textures. Another 500-1000MB on OS.

3GB really aint much today.

Why would textures go to the RAM? There is more important stuff there than textures.

[Vinas]

1GB alone would goto textures. Another 500-1000MB on OS.
3GB really aint much today.

Considering Windows splits half for kernel memory and half for user programs, it's not much at all. So with a 3GB system you really only have 1.5GB for programs.

[Shintai]

Why would textures go to the RAM? There is more important stuff there than textures.

Because thats where the GPU will fetch it before putting it in its own memory. It cant load it from HD.

Considering Windows splits half for kernel memory and half for user programs, it's not much at all. So with a 3GB system you really only have 1.5GB for programs.

Thats not true. 32bit Windows would assign a 2/2GB. It doesnt matter how much physical memory you actually got. Also its not as such 2GB for user programs. But actually 2GB per thread/instance.

Aint it tested on 64bit anyway?

[Donnie27]

What makes you think this was only on an AMD system

We had W95/98 on Pentium I 75, Pentium I 166, Pentium 2 400 and Athlon 1400 Thunderbird. You can tell me whatever you want, but if it fails at 4 systems to run normally, also my friends had issues with said OS, then it definately doesnt depend on hardware or user.

98SE was indeed better. Then again 98 ain't 98SE, is it?

Also, stop the trolling, especially since it fails

Listen Troll, put a sock in it!

I had both and didn't have to re-install Win98SE on my Intel Systems every 30 to 45 days The VIA chipsets were more of a Problem than AMD processors. 3 of my machines with Intel CHIPSETS had installs on them for 3 years without a re-install. 4 AMD systems while trying to get better revisions LOL!An old Compaq P3 had one W98SE install for 4+ Years. If I didn't have problems with AMD/VIA, I wouldn't say I did.

Not just me, but many of the Geeks at the Commie-port (Commport), Sharkey's and Tom's forums I visted at the time, had problems as well. Many AMD and VIA Fans blamed MS!

[Calmatory]

Because thats where the GPU will fetch it before putting it in its own memory. It cant load it from HD.

Is that so?

Next questions: When does the GPU fetch the texture data from RAM? What happens if the texture data fits VRAM? What happens if it does not?

I hope you know the answers. I think you are sailing on unknown waters... It's a trap, really!

[Rammsteiner]

Listen Troll, put a sock in it!

I had both and didn't have to re-install Win98SE on my Intel Systems every 30 to 45 days The VIA chipsets were more of a Problem than AMD processors. 3 of my machines with Intel CHIPSETS had installs on them for 3 years without a re-install. 4 AMD systems while trying to get better revisions LOL!An old Compaq P3 had one W98SE install for 4+ Years. If I didn't have problems with AMD/VIA, I wouldn't say I did.

Not just me, but many of the Geeks at the Commie-port (Commport), Sharkey's and Tom's forums I visted at the time, had problems as well. Many AMD and VIA Fans blamed MS!

When do you learn to read ffs? What did I tell about W95/98 and 98SE? And I'd rather put a sock around it and run naked trough the shopping mall btw, dont know wtf you're on about but it ain't doing this forum any good really

Also, I didnt have any AMD CPU problems back then, both with a Duron 1000 and Athlon Tunderbird 1400

[Donnie27]

When do you learn to read ffs? What did I tell about W95/98 and 98SE? And I'd rather put a sock around it and run naked trough the shopping mall btw, dont know wtf you're on about but it ain't doing this forum any good really

Also, I didnt have any AMD CPU problems back then, both with a Duron 1000 and Athlon Tunderbird 1400

Read your own posts and you'd see WTF your problem is Your constant Trolling isn't doing the forum any good at all. The above post is a prime example! I've dealt with AMD systems since back to their 386 days. You don't know,you're right, you're clueless about K6 and VIA problems. But it's something seemingly negative about AMD so you troll. So like defending your Mom or Sister's honor you troll or blindly reply in AMD's defense!

I believed the Overclocks, posted that I did. I have Phenom II at the top of my shopping list. I never wavered as you did after burning up an IMC and Mobo LOL! So is this attack personal, something held over from the past?

[Shintai]

Is that so?

Next questions: When does the GPU fetch the texture data from RAM? What happens if the texture data fits VRAM? What happens if it does not?

I hope you know the answers. I think you are sailing on unknown waters... It's a trap, really!

Its still in main memory....And if textures cant fit the memory on the graphics card it would read it from main memory aswell. We had that function since AGP via GART. But that would be an additional EXTRA amount locked for it.

[Calmatory]

Its still in main memory....And if textures cant fit the memory on the graphics card it would read it from main memory aswell. We had that function since AGP via GART. But that would be an additional EXTRA amount locked for it.

Why wouldn't the textures be free'd after they are fetched to VRAM and become useless burden? I remind you that you obviously were talking about low RAM systems.

Unknown waters... It's a trap!

[Shintai]

Why wouldn't the textures be free'd after they are fetched to VRAM and become useless burden? I remind you that you obviously were talking about low RAM systems.

Unknown waters... It's a trap!

Why dont you explain it? Or would that make you caught in a "trap"

[Macadamia]

lolololololololol. No no no.


Texture loading depends on the engine structure, either it's majority pre-load (older stuff, think < Unreal 2) or load + stream (Unreal 3, CryEngine 2 etc).

In the first case, the texture space only exists when the textures are loading. After loading it backs off, clears it, and lets the remaining subsystems load. This was more in line with older hardware where resources weren't that readily available and load times weren't tantamount.

In modern engines though, there is a certain space allocated for texture streaming, to provide more variety and detailed textures. However in no [Banana]-ing way does the texture cache alone use that much (1GB). The cache would be close to vRAM size, probably smaller than that.

BTW, Crysis as a game uses about 1.6GB of RAM max, noticably less if you run it in DX10.

[Calmatory]

Why dont you explain it? Or would that make you caught in a "trap"

I won't walk into my own traps. They were made for you, and did work very well!

When textures are being loaded successfully to the VRAM, they are free'd. Keeping them is useless wasting of RAM. Doesn't that make sense? When a texture does not fit into VRAM, it is being kept and then fetched from the RAM when needed. Obviously, this is slow.

[Rammsteiner]

Read your own posts and you'd see WTF your problem is Your constant Trolling isn't doing the forum any good at all. The above post is a prime example! I've dealt with AMD systems since back to their 386 days. You don't know,you're right, you're clueless about K6 and VIA problems. But it's something seemingly negative about AMD so you troll. So like defending your Mom or Sister's honor you troll or blindly reply in AMD's defense!

I believed the Overclocks, posted that I did. I have Phenom II at the top of my shopping list. I never wavered as you did after burning up an IMC and Mobo LOL! So is this attack personal, something held over from the past?

You still didnt read.

I was talking about W95/98, you're clearly all hyped up about 98SE. I was not talking about that.

Secondly, you said OS instability comes down to the platform and users, simply saying we suck for having AMD and we're so dumb we cant even get Windows to run stable? How's that not trolling? If 10+ people close around me just cant get it to run stable as it should, on multiple platforms, how does this comes down to a retarded user or bad hardware?

I do not care since when you've dealt with AMD systems or you believe those PhII OC's... at all. It's irrelevant, doesnt make you more reliable or what ever. It's actually a damn wonderfull thing how you can manage to simply ignore certain posts and completely go nuts over others. Ive' posted multiple negative comments about AMD/AM2+ myself multiple times, this doesnt make your post really reliable... again.

Im being clueless about VIA/K6? What's your point? What has been your point in your last failposts anyway?

[Donnie27]

You still didnt read.

I was talking about W95/98, you're clearly all hyped up about 98SE. I was not talking about that.

Secondly, you said OS instability comes down to the platform and users, simply saying we suck for having AMD and we're so dumb we cant even get Windows to run stable? How's that not trolling? If 10+ people close around me just cant get it to run stable as it should, on multiple platforms, how does this comes down to a retarded user or bad hardware?

I do not care since when you've dealt with AMD systems or you believe those PhII OC's... at all. It's irrelevant, doesnt make you more reliable or what ever. It's actually a damn wonderfull thing how you can manage to simply ignore certain posts and completely go nuts over others. Ive' posted multiple negative comments about AMD/AM2+ myself multiple times, this doesnt make your post really reliable... again.

Im being clueless about VIA/K6? What's your point? What has been your point in your last failposts anyway?

Why do you hate me so much? Please get back on topic or please stop messing up the thread with your Troll rants.

[[XC] riptide]

I won't walk into my own traps. They were made for you, and did work very well!

This is called Flamebaiting and sometimes earns a holiday.