This is strictly my own personal opinion.
I've had a Q6600@3.5ghz on a DFI board for about a year now. I also have a Phenom 9850@3.0ghz on an Asus M3A79-T mobo. Contrary to what anyone tries to tell me, the Phenom rig just seems to run better/smoother. Maybe it's a placebo effect, maybe it isn't. I can only go by what my instinct is telling me. I use the 9850 as my daily rig while the Q6600 sits folding away in my basement now.
Simple.. Intel is like running a game 100+ fps with V-Sync Off while AMD is like running a game with V-Sync On 60fps.
When i play games @ 100+fps V-Sync off it seems jerky to me & that's why i play all my games with V-Sync on even tho its only 60fps its smoother.
Last edited by Final8ty; 01-01-2009 at 07:30 PM.
those still have nothing to do with smoothness. they are all completely fps based. sure the first one where the fps are above 60 for the intel its going to stay smooth because it is capped at 60 fps because of vsync. in that situation the intel will be smoother purely because of vsync. turn vsync off and it won't be nearly as smooth. plus as the resolution gets higher and the graphics get more intense the amd system has higher fps plus it comes out at a more consistent rate. i think people are failing to realize that fps isn't the only thing that creates smooth gameplay.Originally Posted by accord99
I don't think you can run a game benchmark on the two systems and compare the min, max, and average FPS. That won't really show anything since the systems are not really stressed in that situation. You need to add stress.
If you do the same benchmark with OTHER things taxing and stressing the systems you should expect a decrease in both systems. The question would be whether or not the decrease is equal for both systems.
If the decrease is equal for both systems then the "smoothness" factor is debunked. But if the performance drops more suddenly on one system and is more gradual on the other system... then that could prove not only the existence of the smoothness factor but could also be measured.
AND who is to say that it won't be Intel with the more gradual decrease and AMD dropping suddenly? (Assuming they are not equal.)
ANWAY: The problem is determining some kind of various tasks that can be run while doing the other benchmark that will equally stress various resources in the system. I have seen a few people try gaming while running a virus scanner and that wasn't enough to really affect the system enough to make a determination. We need to determine various tasks that will eat away at certain resources until we get results or completely debunk the concept.
FX-8350, Powercolor ATI R9 290X LCS, OCZ Vertex 4, Crosshair V Forumula-Z, AMD Radeon DDR3-2133 2x8Gb, Corsair HX1000W, Thermaltake Xaser VI, Xonar D2X, Water Cooling 140.3
They are what you asked for, which are plots of the instantaneous FPS at regular and frequent intervals during a benchmark run.
not really i want more realistic measures. fps 100-600 are pointless need more realistic measures. but they do show a little bit that the phenom 9850 doesn't have as many dramatic changes which should give a smoother effect. and the wic one doesn't work at all because v sync is on.
after owning a core 2 duo, a core 2 quad, a phenom 9850, and now a core i7 I personally saw absolutely nothing smoother about the amd setup over the intel setup. I actually never noticed the difference going from one cpu to the next.
----------------------------------------------------
I own both a Q9450 system and a Phenom 9600 system. Even the Q9450 at 3.8ghz (currently 483x8) doesn't run that well at the desktop. Whenever the computer starts up, there is this period that you can't do anything for like 30 seconds. Like I try and open cpu-z, the loader just sits there for a while. Speedfan hangs for a while. Just nothing runs. I even noticed this on my E6600 system back when I used it with an Asus Striker and had it on the vapo and it clocked to 3.9ghz, there was a time at startup that nothing worked. Now on the Phenom system, it might be hard to believe, but I've never had that problem except with super-pi, which to get it to run then it needs the affinity set.
As for smoother at the desktop, I would imagine that meaning that switching between windows, and responsiveness while burning a cd or something of that nature. Personally I put that in the category of multitasking smoothly, but generalizing it to just smoother still works.
Not much to say right now.
personal opinions most likely aren't going to get anything accomplished here. this is the amd section afterall im sure if u posted in the intel section most would say bs. anyone have any ideas for testing methods?
To do it scientifically we need to list the various different types of resources. Then we need to identify applications that would stress each one of these various systems.
After we know those things we can then systematically run these things one at a time WITH some other particular benchmark.
EXAMPLES:
1. Run benchmark.
2. Run benchmark with 4xPrime95.
3. Run benchmark with Virus scan or defrag.
4. Run benchmark while compressing.
5. Run benchmark while encoding.
<you get the idea... add more to the list as needed>
The basic test routine listed above is simple. But what if you do all of the above and you don't get anything that really makes a huge difference? Does that mean that the effort was wasted?
NO. Because then you start running more than one thing at a time. Using this process one could eventually find a combination that would work. Or maybe not.
The best part is now we don't only have the Intel FSB vs AMD IMC. Now we also have the i7 to add to the testing. There has not been a lot of motivation to complete this type of testing in the past. But in the future I predict that this type of test WILL become popular with Intel benchmarkers that have both Intel FSB and Intel i7 chips. (A side effect will be that the AMD will also be shown to be better.)
I have been in a discussion about this very issue where a poster basically came up with: "That is worthless because you are only looking for something that AMD does well." But does that really matter? If it ends up being something that can be tested and measured then it is REAL. If it doesn't provide end results then it wouldn't matter anyway. (But I have to question why so many posters on various forums seem to not want to see the results of this kind of test. Are they worried about the results?)
Last edited by keithlm; 01-01-2009 at 11:24 PM.
FX-8350, Powercolor ATI R9 290X LCS, OCZ Vertex 4, Crosshair V Forumula-Z, AMD Radeon DDR3-2133 2x8Gb, Corsair HX1000W, Thermaltake Xaser VI, Xonar D2X, Water Cooling 140.3
i agree amd seems smoother... in fact i had posted a thread on this earlier too asking whether it was just me or did other people notice it too.
I have never used a system I can fully call smooth. Of course, I'm one of those exotic people in AMD land that hasn't touched a Phenom yet. ()
(Helped assemble a Q6600 for a friend, Windows clean slate was snappy, not sure about now)
Now I am sitting on the portable (C2D) and just did a simple test.
1: move the mouse from side to side on the screen with no other applications running. No problem of course.
2: Started one compilation in visual studio, and moved the mouse from side to side on the screen. Now the mouse starts to “disappear”. The mouse pointer freezes and shows up in another place, you need to look for the mouse pointer where it is. It doesn't happen that often but it happens.
3: Started two compilations the behavior is now much more common.
Sounds like you have an issue with the hard drive; the symptoms suggest that your hard drive isn't in UDMA or AHCI mode. But definitely not a CPU issue.
Last edited by accord99; 01-02-2009 at 01:56 AM.
[QUOTE=keithlm;3543819]To do it scientifically we need to list the various different types of resources. Then we need to identify applications that would stress each one of these various systems.
After we know those things we can then systematically run these things one at a time WITH some other particular benchmark.
EXAMPLES:
1. Run benchmark.
2. Run benchmark with 4xPrime95.
3. Run benchmark with Virus scan or defrag.
4. Run benchmark while compressing.
5. Run benchmark while encoding.
<you get the idea... add more to the list as needed>
i wud suggest this one instead:
1. game1 benchmark.
2. game1 benchmark with game2
3. game1 benchmark with game2 and game3
4. game1 benchmark with game2 and game3 and game4 ....
rinse and repeat.
1. game2 benchmark
2. game2 benchmark with game1...etc etc.
more fun
From what i have seen in this thread.
On avg, Users currently with AMD believe the possibility of smoother AMD
On avg, Users currently with AMD & Intel believe the possibility of smoother AMD
On avg, Users currently with Intel don't believe the possibility of smoother AMD & want a multitude of test to prove that AMD is not smoother & if its shows anything smoother then the Intel set-up must have something wrong with it..
Last edited by Final8ty; 01-02-2009 at 06:02 AM.
tell that the guys "who are seeing things"
Im in the same boat as you are. Ever since the switch to dualcores i noticed no more increase in "smoothness" over the time.
riped from the review thread:
Sure, but you dont hear such comments form that crowd. Its the gamers that claim its "more smoother."
I'm sure this whole "smoothness" thing would be a lot easier to sell to an engineer at a server OEM- they work on a little bit different platfom integration level than just slapping some crap together and shooting zombies
I dont deny that, every architecture has its strengh and weaknesses, just look at archivers, ever since AMD introduced its IMC it was king in such apps that needed a lot of bandwidth. Thats a fact and can be proven by numbers and data.
Imho "smoothness" is the same as with the "noone needs more then 30fps".
Some guys see it, some guys dont, you cant quantify things that rely on human perception, regardless of how sophisticated your test suite, measurment gear, data loging etc. is, noone has succeded to factor in human perception off certain things till now.
Addition:
Thats also why the whole benches will fail, the only thing i have seen here has nothing to do with smoothness rather then how good the cpu or more like the os can handle/manage multiple threads with heavy load.
this is a example:
[QUOTE=sundancerx;3544242]The second test don't really tells you anything about smoothness, but rather how good the os is in allocating processor time. If the priority of the benchmark and prime is the same, you loose fps. But if the priority of the benchmark is higher then for prime it will run faster (but still slower as if would run without prime in the backround).
Same goes for test 3, but now the dominant factor is the HDD, a 6ms VR would fell much "smoother" then a standard 12ms HDD, with that test your really benching your HDD and not the CPU. Also depending on the benchmark, you wouldn't even notice any drops at all.
Same for the other 2 scenarios, your testing the cpu while one subsystem is beeing stressed and turned into a bottleneck.
Imho the biggest problem is, that there is no explicit definition for "smoothness". It not possible to test for something if the objective is not clear in the first place.
Last edited by Hornet331; 01-02-2009 at 06:30 AM.
What we need is a piece of software that will launch multiple apps at one time and messure the load times in millisecs. Then run this bench on equal speed CPU's, same ram, same non-raid HDD with fresh OS.
I bet one of these great coders here could wip something up like this.
Particle's First Rule of Online Technical Discussion:
As a thread about any computer related subject has its length approach infinity, the likelihood and inevitability of a poorly constructed AMD vs. Intel fight also exponentially increases.
Rule 1A:
Likewise, the frequency of a car pseudoanalogy to explain a technical concept increases with thread length. This will make many people chuckle, as computer people are rarely knowledgeable about vehicular mechanics.
Rule 2:
When confronted with a post that is contrary to what a poster likes, believes, or most often wants to be correct, the poster will pick out only minor details that are largely irrelevant in an attempt to shut out the conflicting idea. The core of the post will be left alone since it isn't easy to contradict what the person is actually saying.
Rule 2A:
When a poster cannot properly refute a post they do not like (as described above), the poster will most likely invent fictitious counter-points and/or begin to attack the other's credibility in feeble ways that are dramatic but irrelevant. Do not underestimate this tactic, as in the online world this will sway many observers. Do not forget: Correctness is decided only by what is said last, the most loudly, or with greatest repetition.
Remember: When debating online, everyone else is ALWAYS wrong if they do not agree with you!
LOL a portavke c2d okay get a portable AMD chip, with the same video card, same ram, same screen. LOL man these tests are dumb.
Thank you!Yeah so its funny to see the AMD fanbois who usually debate with dellusion still fighting against this one. AMD gets blown out of the water here but yet its still smoother. I find it hard to believe a cpu that a cpu who gives half the fps can produce a smoother result considering how much work its trying to do, where as the other is doing it all with massive overkill. Just doesn't make sense. Being able to run your mouse back and forth smoother lol wowza grasping at straws hardcore especially when a bazillion options come into play. Really only way you guys are going to end this is by putting 2 systems next to each other with same with the same exact componants even the monitor except for the cpu and motherboard. Doesn't make sense to test on a lesser monitor or one with a crappier video card ect.
Last edited by Glow9; 01-02-2009 at 07:41 AM.
i3 2100, MSI H61M-E33. 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws.
MSI GTX 460 Twin Frozr II. 1TB Caviar Blue.
Corsair HX 620, CM 690, Win 7 Ultimate 64bit.
monor details cahnged ???? whole scene the same though ??
did anyone noticed in that thread that the one game screen shots that where taken at the same spot and same time show different minor details ?
like the rock was a totally different shape lol, it should be the same shape on both systems??? why is not the same ????
as viewing as screen a whole it would look the same up, but if you look for every detail it's not the same.
HAVE NO FEAR!
"AMD fallen angel"
You didn't get the memo? 1 hour 'Fugger time' is equal to 12 hours of regular time.
I dunno all my sytems have run smooth, it's called system mechanic
heatware chew*
I've got no strings to hold me down.
To make me fret, or make me frown.
I had strings but now I'm free.
There are no strings on me
I use a 2x2 Intel CPU at work and a 9850 at home. It's honestly really hard to tell sometimes where the hiccups on the work machine come from. There is so much stuff loaded on my desktop at the office; an old version of Symantec, various client-monitoring stuff, etc. Not to mention that my home machine runs Vista 64 and my work runs Server 2003. Too many variables to compare apples to apples.
Having said that, subjectively speaking, I have noticed a difference in the "smoothness" as well... I wonder if it's chipset related?
Thuban 1090 @ stock
Windows 7 Ultimate
Asus M4A78T-E
8GB OCZ Reaper HPC DDR2 1066mhz RAM
6970 Video Card
2T Hitachi Deskstar Drives
(sheepish look) ASUS Physx Board
Glow9 has already answered (quite harshly).
I see you (and others) repeat these arguments.
I hope you (all) see the epic failure in such arguments.
1st:
Most of you "hate" Intel for some reason.
2snd:
Most of you only own/use/care about tuning an AMD rig.
3rd:
You *must* comprehend that a "smoothness" test ideally will mean identical hardware apart from CPU (motherboard with similar chipset).
Sidenote:
Using a "lappie" with C2D as "proof" even make your arguments even more epic.
When I had S754, S939, S478 and S775 (at the same time), the best benches was on the AMD rigs.
The Intel systems with HT CPU's *appeared* smoother - for me.
Smoother does not mean hourglass/pointer, but switchin/starting apps.
Current rigs (C2D/C2Q/S775 and several AM2\X2 rigs) I cannot see any big difference in "smoothness".
The "worst" rig though is the one I am writing from now.
Gigabyte GA-MA69G-S3H(RS690/SB600) & X2 6000+.
I will *not* conclude this is related to the CPU/chipset, but a XP install upgraded from S939.
No, actually it is AMD users want a multitude of tests so that they can say: "Look: we can MEASURE this difference. Stop telling us that it doesn't exist." (And as I've said before: it will eventually be IMC users against FSB users. This won't just be Intel vs AMD. When the i7 owners get through the honeymoon period this subject will rear it's ugly head in the Intel forums when they get tired of FSB users screaming about how their chips work better and there is no reason to update to i7.)
The problem is that many people want to just dismiss the notion out of hand or ridicule it because they do not want it to be something that is actually true. They are basically saying: "We don't want that to be true so therefore we can't comprehend how it could be true." They are unwilling to actually consider that using various methods it might actually be something measurable. Because of this they pop into threads like this and do anything they can to sabotage the thread.
I'm sure that this thread will eventually die just like every thread I've ever seen about it. What happens is that enough of the nay-sayers come and sabotage the thread to the point that the people that actually know there is a difference just give up.
FX-8350, Powercolor ATI R9 290X LCS, OCZ Vertex 4, Crosshair V Forumula-Z, AMD Radeon DDR3-2133 2x8Gb, Corsair HX1000W, Thermaltake Xaser VI, Xonar D2X, Water Cooling 140.3
what dose X2 and core 2 duo have to do with this thread ?Glow9 has already answered (quite harshly).
I see you (and others) repeat these arguments.
I hope you (all) see the epic failure in such arguments.
1st:
Most of you "hate" Intel for some reason.
2snd:
Most of you only own/use/care about tuning an AMD rig.
3rd:
You *must* comprehend that a "smoothness" test ideally will mean identical hardware apart from CPU (motherboard with similar chipset).
Sidenote:
Using a "lappie" with C2D as "proof" even make your arguments even more epic.
When I had S754, S939, S478 and S775 (at the same time), the best benches was on the AMD rigs.
The Intel systems with HT CPU's *appeared* smoother - for me.
Smoother does not mean hourglass/pointer, but switchin/starting apps.
Current rigs (C2D/C2Q/S775 and several AM2\X2 rigs) I cannot see any big difference in "smoothness".
The "worst" rig though is the one I am writing from now.
Gigabyte GA-MA69G-S3H(RS690/SB600) & X2 6000+.
I will *not* conclude this is related to the CPU/chipset, but a XP install upgraded from S939.
I though this was about core 2 quad vs phenom
my argument is a ratio 15:50 30:75.
how much slower amd is to intel: how much more cache intel uses
I am pro AMD, but haven't said it's smoother.
I've never gotten the chance to use a core 2 quad yet.
HAVE NO FEAR!
"AMD fallen angel"
You didn't get the memo? 1 hour 'Fugger time' is equal to 12 hours of regular time.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks